Lords Sitting of 3 May 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich
The Lord Sudeley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

ENCLOSED STOVES AND SMOKELESS FUELS
2.36 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they can now make a further statement on the encouragement and use of enclosed stoves and the progress that has been made in the production of smokeless fuels.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the Government have been reviewing the general position of solid smokeless fuels in the light of the Report of the Peech Committee. My right honourable friend hopes to make a progress report in another place in the near future. The noble Lord can rest assured that the Government are well aware of the contribution which enclosed stoves can make to the Clean Air Campaign, particularly in those areas where the supply of open fire coke may present difficulties as the campaign develops. The Government have already drawn the attention of local authorities to the merits of closed stoves, and the British Standards Institution is now at work on a specification for suitable fuels.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, while congratulating Her Majesty's Government on giving me a more satisfactory answer to this Question than has been possible on those occasions in the last two years on which I have asked it, may I ask the noble Lord whether he and the Government realize
1260
that, apart from the benefits of clean air, it might pay the nation to spend quite a large sum of money to find out how to burn coal better in enclosed stoves rather than to subsidise the coal industry, which does not please the taxpayer or the industry?
LORD HASTINGS: I think the noble Lord will find, when my right honourable friend makes his statement quite soon in another place, that he will have something to say about this matter of enclosed stoves. As for that part of the question which dealt with finding means of producing fuel for enclosed stoves, that, I think, was the basis of the noble Lord's own Question on July 20, 1959.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: And the year before.
LORD HASTINGS: It was then explained that no method had yet been found of burning small industrial coal efficiently in closed stoves, because it is not smokeless; and there is still nothing further to report in this regard. Nevertheless, it may be of interest to the noble Lord to know that the Coal Board market annually 2½ million tons of fuel suitable for closed stoves. They have also reached the pilot plant stage in the production of new smokeless fuels, though in this case for the open fire, and they hope to produce 1 million tons of these new smokeless fuels by 1965.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord give in a Written Answer the names of those towns which are consuming a high proportion of smokeless fuel in relation to their populations, and the names of the industrial towns which have failed to implement the Act?
LORD HASTINGS: I am afraid I cannot answer that question to-day.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No: but could the noble Lord give it in a Written Answer?
LORD HASTINGS: Yes, my Lords. If the noble Lady would put that Question down, I have no doubt the answer could be given.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, arising out of the first Answer of the noble Lord to the Question on the Order Paper, I take

1261
it that there is no intention of giving preference to enclosed stoves as such. Is it not very much preferable that we should have available proper supplies of smokeless fuels which can be used in open grates, especially those of the new type, which distribute the warmed atmosphere more evenly?
LORD HASTINGS: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that question. As he is probably aware, the grants being given at the moment—40 per cent. from the Government and 30 per cent. from the local authorities—are limited to what is reasonably necessary to enable the householder to comply with the Smoke Control Order. They refer usually to the cost of converting existing open fires to enable them to burn coke or other smokeless fuels, and do not relate to the full cost of installing closed stoves. But this matter will be referred to, I imagine, in the Minister's statement.
LORD DYNEVOR: May I ask the noble Lord: is he not aware that it is perfectly possible to burn anthracite in open grates now without conversion?
LORD HASTINGS: That may be quite true, bat this conversion is not merely of existing open fires but also covers the replacement of old-fashioned fires by open, modern grates.
LORD LAWSON: I think the noble Lord said that there was to be a Report upon this matter. Can he tell us when we shall have that Report?
LORD HASTINGS: Did I say that there was to be a Report? No; my statement is based on the Report of the Peech Committee. That was a Report of the Committee on Solid Smokeless Fuels, which was published as a White Paper in April, 1960—Cmnd. 999. I said there is to be a statement by my right honourable friend reporting progress—in other words, decisions and the progress made—based on the findings of that Committee.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: When?
LORD HASTINGS: In the very near future: within, I think I can say, not more than two or three weeks.

USE OF CHEMICALS IN FOOD PRODUCTION
2.43 p.m.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any information is available as to the effect upon the consumer of agricultural products which have been stimulated or fertilised during growth or production by artificial chemical substances.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, so far as plant products are concerned there is no conclusive evidence that crops grown with properly balanced chemical fertilisers are any less nutritive than crops grown with farmyard manure or compost. A recent experiment by the Human Nutrition Research Unit of the Medical Research Council tends to confirm that there is no difference in the nutritive value of wheats grown under various fertiliser treatments.
As regards the residual effects of substances used to promote growth in fattening animals, the use of antibiotics is restricted by regulations made under the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1956, on the advice of the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council. Present evidence is that meat from animals treated with synthetic oestrogens involves no risk to the consumer, but certain aspects of the use of these substances have been referred to the Ministry of Health's Standing Committee on Medical and Nutritional Aspects of Food Policy.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that interesting reply, is he aware that before these chemical products were introduced, pneumonia and consumption were the main diseases of the nation? They have now been largely eliminated by medical science, but in their place are cancer and coronary thrombosis, which we hardly had at that time. Is it not rather curious that that should coincide with the use of these chemicals, and is there no connection between the two, particularly when one realises that people in places like Lapland, where

1263
they do not use these artificial fertilisers for their food, are not suffering in that way?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, so far there are no indications that there is any connection. There are a number of Committees, as the noble Lord knows, some of which were referred to in the debate we had last week on toxic chemicals in relation to their effects on wild life. They were referred to particularly in the speech of my noble friend Lord Waldegrave.
I think it may be of interest to the noble Lord if I say, in ease he does not already know, that in addition to those Committees mentioned by my noble friend there was established last year the British Industrial Biological Research Association, under the auspices of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which receives a 50 per cent. grant from the Government, the other half being paid, of course, by the trade. They are to set up a research centre for the purpose of examining food additives and other substances, for instance agricultural residues, so as to assess whether the residues of chemicals used in agriculture are likely to prove toxic to the consumer. It is considered that that should produce a good deal of additional evidence of the sort which the noble Lord requires.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in addition to the negative evidence mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bossom, there is now considerable positive evidence, both in the United States and here, particularly as a result of the work of those engaged in research at Bristol, that these artificial chemical substances, including seed dressings, do have an effect on the incidence of cancer? Can he arrange that this particular evidence should be examined by the Committee to which he has just referred?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the particular matter which interests the noble Lord does not, I think, really refer to these seed dressings—because, so far as is known, there is no evidence at the moment in this country about that—but it could be said to refer to the use of these oestrogens in cattle. There was a report on that matter, as a result of
1264
which the Agricultural Research Council and the Medical Research Council made a Press release in April, 1959, relating to the effects of oestrogens on the fertility of animals, and giving advice to farmers accordingly. Further
investigation is being made by the Standing Committee on Medical and Nutritional
Aspects of Food Policy. One of the things they have under review in this connection is the possibility (I think this is what the noble Lord wants to know) of carcinogenic risks in food additives and pesticides. This Standing Committee on Medical and Nutritional Aspects of Food Policy has this particular subject under review.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the Government get no urgency to this matter? We have heard so much about Committees being appointed, but Committees do not do the research. May I ask the noble Lord how many scientists are likely to be supported in this research? Is he aware that even in the last few days competent biologists have been turned aside because no research money was available?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, during the debate we had last week, the noble Lord accused the Government of not having a sense of urgency, and I think that a reply was made fairly effectively—in fact very effectively—by my noble friend. There are a number of these bodies. They are not all just Committees sitting in armchairs studying other people's papers. There are scientists attached to these Committees, working as well, and they are all very highly-skilled and qualified people—professors of biology, of science, and all the rest. There is no doubt that a good deal of work is being done. I have just made reference to the new British Industrial Biological Research Association, which obviously includes scientists actively working on particular problems. While my right honourable friend will take note of what the noble Lord has said, I think he will not feel guilty about the charge of complacency or lack of sense of urgency.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is it not the case that these substances have been brought into mass use long before any research has been devoted to ascertaining what their ultimate effects may be upon the human

1265
being who consumes these products? Is it not true that research has lagged far behind the need?
LORD HASTINGS: No, my Lords, I do not think that that is true. First of all, the noble Lord is well aware of the notification scheme agreed with the chemical industry, to which my noble friend Lord Waldegrave referred last week. Under this scheme new toxic chemical substances and proposed new uses for existing substances are referred to the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances Used in Agriculture and Food Storage, a Standing Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Dodds, which recommends the precautions that should be taken to ensure that food produced from treated crops contains no harmful residues. Of course, local authorities also have power under the Food and Drugs Act, and they do act. Their inspectors go round, and are concerned not only with foreign bodies in food but also with toxic effects. These two activities are of considerable practical use.
I do not think it is fair to say that chemicals are brought into use without knowledge or without being tested. There is also Professor Sanders' Research Study Group on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture and Food Storage, which concerns itself precisely with this sort of question, and is continually reviewing the need for further research into the contamination of foods with pesticide residues, which refers to insecticides used on fertilisers and not only seed dressings and oestrogens. So a considerable amount of work is being done by way of protecting human beings from all the dangers about which the noble Lord is anxious.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would the noble Lord explain this paint? He mentioned the carcinogenic properties of oestrogen, but this was known many years ago. This knowledge is accepted by scientists and not disputed. It seems an amazing thing that, after oestrogen has been fed to animals for years, that we are now concerned because its carcinogenic properties may be transmitted to human beings who eat animals. Surely that is a simple deduction, which should have been arrived at before oestrogen was given to animals.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, this question was put forward two years ago and then apparently the only sure knowledge was that these oestrogens affected fertility, and farmers were advised not to feed this substance to breeding animals, only to animals for slaughter. The other problem to which the noble Lady has referred is under investigation at the moment and a report has not yet been made. There was no conclusive evidence of the nature such as she has suggested existing two years ago.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, why allow these things to be used while the research is still going on and when the results are not known?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, these things are of benefit to agriculture. We had the argument in principle last week on the effect of toxic chemicals on wild life and it came out how seed dressings are of great value to agriculture. In certain cases, oestrogens are of value to animals, and I do not think that it is a reasonable proposition, to say that we must stop the use of practically all chemicals until it has been proved conclusively that they cannot possibly harm anything or anybody; because there has been a great advance in the field of agriculture all round as the result of the use of chemical substances.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, only last week we were told that certain seed dressings had been causing the death of thousands of birds who had been on the seeds—pigeons, rooks, jackdaws and others. I had experience of this on my farm last year and banned the use of these particular dressings. But they are still in use, and if they are killing thousand's of birds, they must be a danger to human beings. I think it is time that the Government did something about it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, we must recognise that this question was debated at great length the other day and we are now dealing with the effect of agricultural products on humans, not on birds.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether the Government will consider

1267
the advisability of producing a White Paper which embodies the number of Committees and the representation thereon, so that we shall get an intelligent reply to the questions we have been putting?
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, as we are dealing with a Starred Question, would it be in order to move, "That this correspondence be now closed"?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Earl would be in order, but I assure him that many of us would welcome it.

ELECTRICITY BOARD'S "GOODWILL" ADVERTISING
2.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the cost of the "goodwill" advertising by the Central Electricity Generating Board, which appears to have as its purpose the persuasion of the public to tolerate the placing of electricity pylons in Britain's most beautiful valleys; and whether, in view of the need to curtail wasteful expenditure by nationalised industries, they will instruct the Authority to cease this expenditure forthwith.]
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the purpose of these advertisements is to explain to the public the problem with which the Board is faced in extending the main transmission system required to meet the increasing demand for power, taking into account its amenity obligations. Subject to the Board exercising reasonable restraint in its advertising expenditure, it is for the Board to decide what is justified in these circumstances. My right honourable friend is satisfied that the Board is exercising reasonable restraint. Although the Board's accounts are not yet published, I understand that during the year ended March 31, 1961, the Board spent about £320,000 on public relations and publicity. My right honourable friend would not feel justified in asking the Board to provide published information about the cost of particular parts of these activities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for giving me the information that the Central Electricity Generating Board have spent £320,000 of the taxpayer's money, is he aware that the particular advertisement to which I am referring is a series depicting a hand holding a pylon, with the caption "Where would you put it?" There may be varied answers to that question, but the Minister of Housing and Local Government gave the Generating Board the answer about two weeks ago: "I should put it underground." Does the noble Lord not think that, instead of this wasteful expenditure, which we all deplore in a number of the nationalised industries, this "brainwashing" activity—and that is all it can 'be characterised—to condition the taxpayer into finding this money, the money would be far better allocated towards reducing the cost of electric current to the taxpayer?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the first thing I would say in reply to the noble Lord is that the last way of reducing the cost of the supply of electricity to consumers is to put all the transmission lines in England underground, because that would immediately put up the cost. That is the most expensive thing we could possibly do. The business of the Board's Public Relations Department is to explain to the public the difficulties. It invites them to read this admirable pamphlet on the preservation of amenities, with which the Board is especially charged. The pamphlet has been produced by Sir Cristopher Hinton and Sir William Holford, and shows the public the difficulties. Pylons have either to be put all the way on the top of a ridge, or partly on top and lower down or made to thread an intricate course through the valleys. But it is certainly a very legitimate objective of the Board to put out this sort of publicity, because it is only helping the ordinary people who are to be supplied with electricity to make up their minds how they want to receive it.
As for "brainwashing", really the noble Lord should remember what he himself said on April 2, 1957, when he deplored the technical language used in a Government White Paper of that time, and suggested that pictorial displays by which the Government can carry with

1269
them the people of this country should be made. He went on to say that the sort of publication he had in mind was one—and I use his own words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 1004]:
"if I may use a rather offensive phrase, that has been written down to the mentality of the general public…It is such a scientific subject that somebody must find a way of putting this over in schoolboy language, with pictures, if you like, so that the noble Lord, Lord Mills, can carry the public with him."
That is precisely what the noble Lord is complaining about.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is precisely what I am not complaining about. I challenge the noble Lord to produce to your Lordships any one word of mine over the whole of the time I have been in your Lordships' House when I have advocated the vandalism which has been practised by the Electricity Generating Board in despoiling the countryside by these pylons. Why, I even went so far, during the period which the noble Lord has just quoted, of accusing his noble friend Lord Mills of having a "Mills Circus" that went about despoiling the countryside by putting up these pylons.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister, who, after all, is a countryman, if anybody is, would not be party to despoiling the countryside in the way the noble Lord has indicated. The noble Lord should bear in mind that these transmission lines are not all just going through one of these valleys, to which he refers, and out the other end, and that many of thorn are overhead distribution lines for the people who live in the valleys. Surely, one of the aims of the Board is rural electrification, and not only electrification for people in the cities. We had this matter out in a grand Scottish debate that I remember not long ago in connection with hydro-electric activities in Scotland. In that debate the benefits which people isolated in rural areas receive from this sort of development were made quite clear; and it was shown that in many cases the work of these authorities, by making new lakes and so on, had actually improved the countryside. I do not think the noble Lord is justified in saying that there is a general despoliation of our beautiful countryside.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I live in one of these valleys, and I should like to ask my noble friend whether he does not think there is too much centralisation. We have these pylons in my part of the world, going 60 miles from the centre to within five miles of my home, and they have really ruined the countryside. I wonder whether the Minister who is in charge of this great department would look into whether there is any reason why there should not be different centres, rather than having one main centre from which lines run out for miles.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am bound to tell my noble friend that that is very wide of the original Question; it deals with Government policy, and I cannot possibly reply to his question. However, no doubt my noble friend will take note of what he has said.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is not the case that before any of these pylons are erected landlords and tenants are fully consulted about the matter?—and it takes a very long time. Is he also aware that we on this side of the House are much more concerned about the £1 million or more spent on "brainwashing" by private industry prior to the last Election?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I do not think I need make any comment on the noble Lord's last remark, because that has nothing to do with the original Question. But I will say that I am grateful to him for bringing up the point he has in regard to the opportunity for individuals or bodies to object before these pylons are put up. One of the purposes of this advertising campaign is to explain the position to the people, so that they may not feel it is necessary to object, thereby saving many months on a public inquiry: and I am told that that sort of saving 'more than pays for the cost of the advertising.

TRAFFIC CONTROL AT LONDON AIRPORT
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why private motor cars are no longer allowed to pull up on the main road

1271
at the various entrances and exits at London Airport New Building, and are directed to another parallel roadway: whether this does not cause considerable hardship and discomfort to passengers in bad weather, as well as danger from being run into by airline buses and other vehicles while crossing the main road, and create a very bad impression on visitors from abroad: and whether arrangements can be made to discontinue this direction until some form of protection against bad weather has been built up to the parallel road, and suitable arrangements made for minimising the danger.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, there are special difficulties in regulating the various types of road traffic in the vicinity of the passenger building. Over 50 per cent. of the passengers now come to the airport by motor car and last summer conditions became very congested at peak times. The new arrangements were evolved following a detailed study last winter by representatives of the Airlines, the Ministry of Transport, the
Police, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. After some initial troubles, the new arrangements seem now to be working satisfactorily. But if further experience shows it to be desirable, we shall not hesitate to modify them.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is nothing undesirable or undemocratic in going to the airport in a private car? Why should airline buses take precedence over private cars? I am sure the noble Earl knows that in many cases it is impossible for passengers, if they live in the country, to go to the airport by airline buses and they are put to this great discomfort. Is it not cheaper and quicker to go in their private cars? I do not see why the airline buses should have precedence. Does the noble Earl agree that this state of affairs does not exist in any other country where there is a first-class airport? Does he not think that it is evidence of a lack of care and organisation on the part of the Government that this state of affairs should exist, and that it should be put right as soon as possible?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to assure my noble friend straight
1272
away that these arrangements are not just bureaucracy run riot, but have been designed for the general convenience of the majority of passengers. The reason—and it is a simple reason—why the airline coaches get priority is that they carry large groups of people with a great deal of luggage, and if they all had to move across this particular road the situation would be far worse than it is.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, can see that it might be impossible for all visitors to pull up at the main exits, but bona fide passengers should have the right to do so. Surely the policeman on point duty should be empowered to say, by looking at his luggage, whether or not a passenger is a bona fide passenger. Does the noble Earl agree that this is a thoroughly bad organisation at the moment, and should be discontinued?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend would expect me to agree that this is a thoroughly bad organisation. I would say, though, in answer to him, that my first experience of the new arrangements tended me to take a rather subjective view of these things. A fortnight ago, on going to Canada, I ran into the new arrangements and found them personally very inconvenient. But a year ago, when, under the old arrangement, I was stuck in a queue reaching right into the tunnel, I found that much more inconvenient. These arrangements are designed to deal with what is admittedly a difficult passenger traffic problem.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, would the noble Earl make representations regarding the collection of luggage?—because, in my view, that is where the real hardship might arise. If they can ensure that luggage is collected from the private cars, wherever they are allowed to stop, I think that most of the hardship would be alleviated.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will, of course, bring the point which the noble Lord has made to the attention of my right honourable friend, but I should like to mention to him that my understanding is that there is a special hut or shed for the porters in the centre of the new bay.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, may I ask what happens in the pouring

1273
rain, when people are put to inconvenience? In view of the Minister's very unsatisfactory Answer, I shall return to the charge later.
EARL JELLICOE: The question of pouring rain obviously poses a problem. I should like to say to my noble friend that these arrangements are purely experimental at the present time. If they prove satisfactory, then consideration will be given to the erection of shelters over these new bays.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider sending to his honourable friend a copy of the debate we recently had on this subject, as well as one which we have recently had on toxic seed dressings?

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1961
3.2 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order), on the Motion moved on Tuesday, the 25th April, by the Marquess of Lansdowne: That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 27th of March last.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, on the Motion of my noble friend the Lord President of the 'Council, the debate on the Motion regarding the European Free Trade Association (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1961, which we held on Tuesday of last week was adjourned. I undertook to have a further look at this Order so that I could deal fully with certain specific questions which were raised on it. My noble Leader gave your Lordships a further assurance, that I would come briefed also to deal with general issues, if need be beyond the specific questions relating to the E.F.T.A. Order. I hope I shall not fail to fulfil both those undertakings.
Many noble Lords considered that the number of persons enjoying diplomatic immunities and privileges in this country was already large and should not
1274
increase further without the closest Governmental scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggested that in time a substantial proportion of the foreign population of London would become exempt from United Kingdom law if the number of these Orders was left unchecked. I certainly see what he means. The fact is, however, that as government in all countries becomes an increasingly complex business, and as the nations of the world tend to become more and more interdependent, the number of international organisations of one kind or another inevitably continues to grow. This may be a good or a bad development, but it is certainly a development which we have all to recognise.
With the growth of international co-operation in all kinds of spheres, the number of international civil servants is also bound to increase. I may say that Her Majesty's Government use their influence in the organisations to which they belong to keep the establishment of officers serving on Organisations as low as possible. We are also concerned that those Organisations to which we belong should be effective, and that we should get good value for money out of our contributions to their expenses. I must draw a firm distinction between full diplomatic immunity and the much lesser scale accorded to the great majority of officers of International Organisations working in or visiting this country. The scale of immunity and privilege normally accorded to diplomats has a long history, and covers such things as inviolability of person, residence and archives; freedom of communication; exemption from local taxation and immunity from legal process. These privileges and immunities accorded to Ambassadors and High Commissioners and their staffs derive from Common Law, international practice and certain Acts of Parliament. They do not derive from the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, which is the Act under which these special Orders in Council are made.
The lesser scale of immunities, with which we are mainly concerned in reexamining this Order, consists only of immunity from legal process limited to official acts and exemption from income

1275
tax on official salaries, but on nothing else.
LORD KILLEARN: What about Customs?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Would the noble Lord allow me to develop my theme? If there are any questions he wishes to ask I shall be only too pleased to answer them later.
I think this distinction between full immunity and the lesser scale is important, and that this distinction became somewhat blurred in our debate last Tuesday. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, perfectly rightly reminded your Lordships
that full immunities were enjoyed by nearly 6,000 persons in the United Kingdom. These figures relate to members of foreign diplomatic missions and Commonwealth High Commissioners' offices. I do not think noble Lords should grumble about the large number of Ambassadors there are in London to-day, when they consider the rapid progress to independence of so many new countries in the world. Surely we welcome their newly gained sovereignty. Surely we are only too glad that they should send an Ambassador or High Commissioner with supporting staff to this country.
As for International Organisations, only 252 persons are resident in the United Kingdom and enjoy any sort of immunity from legal process. Of this number, only three enjoy the full scale of privileges and immunities accorded to diplomats. Copies of the revised list of the International Organisations the staffs of which enjoy privileges and immunities have recently been prepared and are available in the Printed Paper Office. I have the list here, and I think perhaps, for your Lordships' convenience, I will not read the list out, particularly as it is available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office; but I suggest that, for the convenience of the House, and with your Lordships' permission, the revised list should be incorporated in full in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
As far as E.F.T.A. itself is concerned, of its officers only the Secretary-General would, under this Order, enjoy the full scale of immunity in this country. Since, however, the present holder of the office
1276
is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, he will enjoy only the lesser scale of immunity granted to the other officers of E.F.T.A., of whom there are about 50. This means exemption from income tax on official salary and immunity from legal process for official acts.
Article 10 of the Order states that an officer of the Association shall enjoy
"immunity from suit and legal process in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by him in the course of the performance of official duties."
The immunity applies only in respect of official duties. In the case of junior executive, clerical or administrative staff, not assigned to hourly rates—about whom the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Hawke, showed concern—their official duties are very limited and would not, I think, be difficult to define. In the last resort, should any dispute arise it would be for the courts of this country to decide what were, and what were not, official duties.
It may be said that the phrase "official duties" is somewhat vague. This is a phrase that bas been in use for some time, and up to now no one has been able to devise a better one. But, as I have said, in the last resort it would be for the courts to decide. There is no intention at present to set up any office of E.F.T.A. in the United Kingdom. The immunities sought would apply, therefore, only to officers of the organisation and national representatives visiting the United Kingdom on the rare occasions when a meeting is held in London. As I think I told your Lordships last week, there is to be a meeting in London in June this year. This Order is therefore concerned with a very small number of people on the rare occasions when they will have to visit the United Kingdom.
This brings me to the second main point that was raised by several noble Lords, motoring and motoring offences. I am advised that motoring itself is seldom, if ever, in the context of these Orders, regarded as an official duty, except for persons employed as chauffeurs. A chauffeur would be eligible only for the lesser scale of privileges and immunities. The consequence of this is that, with the exception of the Secretary-General, who enjoys the full scale of

1277
diplomatic immunity, the remainder of the E.F.T.A. personnel would in traffic accidents or motoring offences be subject Ito the provisions of the Road Traffic Act. Third-party insurance is compulsory for them, and they can be sued for any damage caused or prosecuted for any motoring offence. This applies to all members of International Organisations other than those few high officers who enjoy the full scale of diplomatic immunity.
This brings me to a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, as to whether there exists any scheme whereby Her Majesty's Government can pay compensation to members of the public suffering damage by the act of persons covered under International Organisations Orders of this kind. There is no such scheme, and indeed it is not considered necessary, for, except in the case of those few high officers who enjoy the full scale of diplomatic immunity, compensation can be sought through an insurance company or by action in the courts in exactly the same way as if the driving was done by any private citizen. In the event of damage caused by the Secretary-General of E.F.T.A. himself, if your Lordships approve this Order, or by a chauffeur of the Organisation driving on duty, we should still expect the insurance company to pay up. The Association of Insurance Companies have undertaken not to invoke their clients' immunity to avoid paying compensation in dealing with claims for damages against such persons. So far as is known, immunity under Orders similar to the one that we are now considering has never—I repeat never—been invoked in a civil claim.
I should like to say a word about the prOliferation of "C.D." plates, to which the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Silkin, referred. It is quite correct to say that these can be bought almost anywhere, though I cannot accept that their abuse is as widespread as was suggested. The position is that there is no legislative basis for the existence or control of these plates, and they do not in themselves afford the occupant of a car so marked any privilege or immunity whatsoever. Her Majesty's Government are not contemplating making them the subject of legislation. We have considered the question of control of "C.D." plates very carefully, and I understand
1278
that the legislation that would be required for their control is much more complicated than one might at first imagine. However—and I do not want to be asked to go further on this point this afternoon—I can assure your Lordships that this question is under active review. I do not wan: to have to go further at the moment.
I now come to an important point made in turn by the noble Lords, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, Lord Hawke and Lord Jessel, the question of the exemption of various persons from taxation, particularly the exemption of international civil servants, being United Kingdom citizens, from United Kingdom income tax. Provision is made in Article 10 of this Order for such exemption as regards official salary only for officers of the Association in question, but not for those recruited locally and assigned to hourly rates. There is a sound reason for this provision. If all member Governments of E.F.T.A. were to levy income tax in the normal way in their own countries on the salaries of the staff of the Organisation, or in particular if the Government where the headquarters are situated were to do so, the subscriptions of member Governments to the organisation would be increased accordingly, because these salaries are calculated with the tax franchise in mind. And it would also mean that Her Majesty's Government would be contributing to the exchequers of other Governments. Because of the considerable variation in the rates of taxation in the countries concerned, it is next to impossible to work out a common or equitable salary scale for such organisations. I should like your Lordships to consider this: since our share of the budget of these international organisations is usually very substantial, and we are contributing 30 per cent. of the E.F.T.A. budget this year, the benefit to ourselves of the existing arrangement is surely obvious.
I now come to the fundamental point which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and by others: is the protection afforded by this Order to E.F.T.A. and to its staff really necessary at all, in seven such well-regulated and law-abiding European States? The answer is that such protection is necessary, but only on the very restricted scale which the E.F.T.A. Order or other similar Orders placed before Parliament would

1279
allow. The fact is that the majority of the countries that are parties with us to the agreements setting up these Organisations do attach value to conferring immunity on the Organisation. If the Organisation itself is to have immunity—and this is legally justified on the ground that individual Governments enjoy immunity from suit in each other's territory—it follows logically that the servants of the Organisation should enjoy immunity in respect of the performance of their official duties. The Privileges and Immunities Protocol to the E.F.T.A. Convention has in fact already been ratified by three of the parties, Austria, Denmark and Norway. If we are to enjoy the advantages of membership of the Organisation, this is part of the price which we must pay. In the case of E.F.T.A., the main burden of the present protocol will fall on our Swiss friends, as host to the Association's headquarters.
Finally, I must remind your Lordships that there are two important safeguards which would protect us against abuse of these immunities. First, the Protocol explicitly says in Article 9 that a party is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representatives if the course of justice might be impeded, and of course Her Majesty's Government would have no hesitation in asking for a waiver should such a situation arise. Secondly, the Protocol also provides that if a panty considers there has been abuse of privileges and immunities the complaining State has the right to require the offender to leave its territory.
It is most important that your Lordships and the public at large should realise that there is no reason for them to take any claim of diplomatic immunity at its face value. They can check up with the Foreign Office and see whether people claiming immunity really are entitled to claim it; and if the person claiming immunity has wronged them in any way, or if they believe him to have committed some crime, they should immediately get in touch with the Foreign Office to see what can be done about it. I can assure your Lordships that any incident brought to our attention at the Foreign Office will be carefully and promptly followed up. I hope that I have been able to satisfy your Lordships on the various questions in
1280
our previous debate, and that your Lordships will agree to the granting of these privileges and immunities to the European Free Trade Association. Before I sit down I should just like to reply to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn. Officers of the Association can import, free of duty, their furniture and effects when they are first taking up their posts, and have no other Customs exemptions whatsoever.
Following is the List of International Organisations entitled to Immunities and Privileges in the United Kingdom, referred to in Lord Lansdowne's Speech:

The United Nations Organisation (including the International Court of Justice).

The International Labour Organisation (I.L.O.).

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (I.C.A.O.).

The World Health Organisation (W.H.O.).

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (F.A.O.).

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (U.N.E.S.C.O.).

The Organisation for European Economic Co-operation (O.E.E.C.).

The Council of Europe.

The Universal Postal Union (U.P.U.).

The International Telecommunications Union (I.T.U.).

The Customs Co-operation Council (C.C.C.).

The World Meteorological Organisation (W.M.O.).

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (N.A.T.O.).

The International Sugar Council.

The International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.).

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (I.B.R.D.).

Western European Union (W.E.U.).

The International Finance Corporation (I.F.C.).

The International Tin Council.

The International Wheat Council.

The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (I.M.C.O.).

The International Development Association (I.D.A.).

The Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara (C.C.T.A.). (Legal capacity only.)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.) (Order made but not yet in force).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D.) (Order made but not yet in force. This Organisation will take the place of O.E.E.C.).

The European Free Trade Association (E.F.T.A.) (Draft Order now before the House).

The following of the above organisations maintain Headquarters, branch offices or agencies in the United Kingdom:
United Nations.

Information Centre.

International Children's Fund.

Postal Administration.

High Commissioner for Refugees.

International Labour Organisation.
Branch Office.
International Sugar Council.
Headquarters.
International Tin Council.
Headquarters.
International Wheat Council.
Headquarters.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Military Agency for Standardisation.
European Naval Communications Agency.
European Radio Frequency Agency.
Western European Union.
Headquarters.
Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.
Headquarters.
In addition, the European Coal and Steel Community maintains a Delegation in London whose members enjoy certain privileges and immunities.
3.32 p.m.
LORD SILKTN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be most grateful to the noble Marquess for his full statement on this particular Order. I am sure that if we had had this statement on the last occasion it might have saved a good deal of discussion. I am quite certain that few noble Lords realised that there were two types of immunity—full immunity and partial immunity—and that the full immunity was limited to particular types of people. Of course, we are discussing on this Order the particular question of the European Free Trade Association, but, in considering this most people had in mind the general question of immunities, which it was felt were growing to such an extent as to become alarming. The noble Marquess has certainly alleviated a good deal of our apprehensions on the subject, but not quite all. No one has suggested that there should be no immunity at all; nor do we suggest in the case of organisations of this kind, where we appreciate the immunity is reciprocal, that we should not grant immunity to certain people who come here in performance of their duties. We were rather concerned that the numbers were growing, and tending to grow, larger and larger.
1282
If the debate we had last week had no other purpose, at least it brought to the notice of the Government our apprehensions that these numbers should not be allowed to grow without most careful scrutiny by the Government. I understand that that scrutiny will take place, and that nobody will be given immunity without the greatest care being taken that it is necessary. I want to say one word on the question of immunity. I do not think that the noble Marquess has entirely resolved my own concern on the subject. The lesser immunity relates to all acts done by a person in the course of the performance of official duties. The noble Marquess rather assumed that there were few matters that might arise in the course of the performance of a person's official duties, but I would point out that the particular concern that was voiced most by those noble Lords who spoke was the possibility of accidents on the road; and in connection with accidents the difficulty does arise of persons who travel to and from a particular meeting in cars. I suggest that in connection with that kind of incident Article 10 (a) would give immunity to the individual involved in the accident, if it was an accident which arose while the officer was going to or from a particular meeting concerned, in this case, with E.F.T.A.
I am not happy about the position of a person who is injured. The noble Marquess referred to an insurance company. But is the officer who receives the immunity obliged to insure at all? What happens if he is not insured? He is immune; he has diplomatic immunity in connection with the journeys that he is making. Of course, if he is wise he will insure, because no doubt he will be making journeys other than to and from meetings, for which he will not be receiving immunity. But in the, let us call it, unlikely event of his not being insured in respect of such journeys, what happens to persons injured? They would have no remedy. Furthermore, is such a person who is injured to be entirely at the mercy of an insurance company? Those of us who have some experience of dealing with insurance companies know that there is a big difference in the way they treat people (a) when they are under a legal obligation, and (b) when they are under no legal obligation.

1283
I feel that while it would be sound policy to give people a certain amount of diplomatic immunity, it ought not to be done at the expense of citizens of this country who may suffer injury; and, if they have no full recourse to the person who inflicts the injury, then that loss ought to be made good by the British Government who grant the immunity. I should like to see the Government accepting full legal responsibility for any injury done to citizens by persons who have this diplomatic immunity.
I think that is where the real difficulty arises. If the noble Marquess could give such an assurance that this matter is being carefully looked into, and that people who suffer at the hands of persons who have diplomatic immunity, whether full or in part, will not have to bear the burden themselves, then I think it would go some way to relieving the minds of those noble Lords who raised this point and who have expressed their apprehensions.
Generally, I would say that, speaking for myself and my noble friends, we have no objection to the principle of granting diplomatic immunity in cases where it is reciprocal. We want to be quite satisfied that the numbers involved are kept under close scrutiny, and we want further to be satisfied that individuals who suffer as a result of this immunity will not have to bear the loss themselves, individually, but that that loss will be made good in some other way.
3.40 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, there is no doubt that the very clear and full explanation, exposé, given by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has cleared the air quite a lot. There is, of course, an unfortunate confusion in the very terms used: "diplomatic privilege" and "diplomatic immunity." They are quite different things. Those terms are used rather indiscriminately. Diplomatic privilege belongs properly to the main body of diplomats. The immunities, which are also enjoyed by the diplomats, are
enjoyed by other bodies as well; and the use of this phrase has, quite naturally, rather led to confusion of thought. That has been very clearly disposed of by the noble Marquess's statement. Diplomatic privilege is enjoyed by diplomats, Ambassadors and
1284
their diplomatic staff; it is concerned with privileges. Immunity is rather different.
To pass on a little from that point, I am very startled by something I have learnt since our last discussion a few days ago. I looked up the list of these non-diplomatic bodies—I do not quite know what to call them: bodies other than Embassies and such. In 1955, when we had a full debate in this House, I quoted a list, which, in fact, had been supplied to me by the Foreign Office in reply to a Written Question. It is actually quoted in the debate of November 16, 1955. The column is No. 583, and I mention it in case anybody wants to look at it. I make the total number of bodies named 18. On May 1, after our debate, I put in a second Question for Written Answer asking if that list could be brought up to date. It now has been, and I was handed this list, which has been quoted by the noble Marquess and which I think is probably in response to that Question. My mathematics may be wrong, but I make the number 41.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has done his mathematics wrongly. In the first list the number is 27 and in the second list it is 8.
LORD KILLEARN: Eight in this list?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes.
LORD KILLEARN: There are two pages of print and I make the number 41. I do not know, my Lords. Your Lordships will have to do your own addition for yourselves, and this will appear in the Record. I have here a list, which was handed to me this afternoon and quoted by the noble Marquess. It will be in the Record, but I have totted the number up and I make it 41. It is a question of arithmetic, and I do not pretend to be good at sums and figures. I also think that the earlier number was 18, in the column I have quoted. However, the point I am trying to make is that if my calculation is correct—the noble Marquess thinks it is not—to jump from 18 in 1955 to 41 in 1960 seems to be pretty rapid progress. We all know that the House does not like this system of immunity—I am talking about immunity, not diplomatic privilege. The real point which

1285
all this discussion has called attention to is a point we all feel rather keenly about, and our discussion will, I hope, accentuate careful scrutiny of any extension of the list. I still think, if my sums are correct, that five years is too short a time in which to jump from 18 to 41.
I revert for a moment to privilege, which is quite another story. We all know why an Ambassador and his staff have privilege. That dates back for centuries. It was arranged so that the representative of a foreign Power should not be
subject to pressure by the Government of the country in which he was stationed; and that is perfectly right and proper. But we are now told to-day that there are 6,000 people with diplomatic privilege. That is quite a lot. In my young day there were eight Embassies here. The last time I spoke on this subject (I have not checked up again) there were 67, and I believe that there are now 72. If we are going to extend that system it is quite a serious thing. Six thousand people get the privileges, I gather—I am not sure. They cover customs duties and all sorts of things. But the main point we are interested in is that this rather unusual type of extra-territorial jurisdiction, which is what it comes to, should be strictly scrutinised and limited to the utmost extent, for a variety of reasons. I am sure that on that particular ground the noble Marquess will entirely agree with me.
3.45 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I, on behalf of some of those who spoke from these Benches, very much welcome the statement that was made by my noble friend this afternoon and the very careful and clear analysis he made of the whole subject? I think that the whole House is very much indebted to him, and I am certain that they will be anxious to pass the present Motion without further delay in the interests of a body which I know commands the approval of the whole House. I respectfully agree with what my noble friend said in the separation, as I might call it, of the two classes of immunity: the immunity enjoyed by the Ambassadors of particular countries and their staffs, with which we have lone been familiar, and the immunities granted to some of these international bodies.
1286
My Lords, I remember (it is now some 11 years ago) that when it was proposed to give to almost the first of these international bodies such immunities as we are now considering—that was the 'Universal Postal Union—in a debate in another place on July 19, 1950, I was among the critics of the proposal to give the Universal Postal Union those privileges. I find that I was in the good company of the present Minister of Health, the present Attorney General, the present Minister of Pensions, and Mr. Lionel Heald, as he then was. We all criticised that proposal. One of the grounds on which we criticised it was that the Universal Postal Union had existed from 1874 to 1950 perfectly happily without any diplomatic privileges, and we could not see that there was a very strong case, after three-quarters of a century of successful functioning without privilege, why they should be given it. Nevertheless, my Lords, our views did not prevail and the privileges were granted to that body.
I agree completely with the present view of Her Majesty's Government, that, chat having been done, we really cannot oppose the modest extension of the number of international bodies that are going to enjoy such immunity. I think that the European Free Trade Association is very properly made a body corporate and is very properly made a body which shall have the immunities that are set out in the document and that have been explained by my noble friend. I think that almost the only criticism remaining is that which 'was made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin: that even in the case of the restricted immunity, a British subject can in certain circumstances be put at a disadvantage. With great respect, I think I should agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that the possible application of Article 10 (a) went rather further than was
suggested by my noble friend. I should have thought, on my reading, that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was right in his interpretation. But, my Lords, that is really not an objection to this particular Order, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, himself really shared that view. It is quite impossible to give any diplomatic privilege without involving a British subject, conceivably, in legal disabilities and hardship. That is the nature of immunity.

1287
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggests—and I am rather attracted by his suggestion—that Her Majesty's Government might make themselves responsible for making good to the British citizens concerned any injury that they may suffer as a consequence. But that, of course, is not limited in any way to this Order. It would extend to all diplomatic privileges, not only those in this field but those which are enjoyed by the Ambassadors and staff of ordinary Embassies. I think that what we are concerned with, my Lords, is that the number of international bodies that are granted the privileges that my noble friend has described should not be enlarged unnecessarily, and that the privileges themselves should be very carefully considered. I 'hope very much that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be carefully considered, but it in no way applies especially to the Order we are now considering: it covers, of course, the whole field of diplomatic privileges and immunities. But I conclude as I began, by thanking my noble friend very much for the clarity and completeness of his statement, and by expressing the very strong hope that this present Motion will be passed without delay.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could I address one or two questions to the noble Marquess, apart from thanking him for his very comprehensive and helpful exposition of this particular Order? The first is: in its powers, this Order appears to go considerably beyond the proposals which have been agreed recently by our representative at Geneva—where we were one of 82 nations—and which presumably will be ratified not only by Her Majesty's Government butt by, we hope, enough Governments. The Order that we are discussing, in the immunities it grants, goes beyond the proposals which we have now agreed with the other nations. Will Her Majesty's Government therefore bring in amending Orders when those newly agreed proposals have been ratified—proposals which are obviously less in the immunities they grant than the ones in the Order which we Shall no doubt approve this afternoon?
The second question is this. Although the noble Marquess quite rightly said that, for a large number of people, there
1288
is lesser immunity, those lesser immunities do nevertheless cover exemptions from income tax, which he explained, and immunity from legal process in respect of official acts. Will those, too, be the subject of reconsideration when the new international Agreement is considered? And will Her Majesty's Government also consider the position of at least one class of persons to whom full immunity is now granted? He mentioned that he agreed with me that full immunity is now granted to 6,000 persons, and I have no quarrel with that at all except when that means (in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Killearn) "non-diplomatic privilege"; but 1,800 of those 6,000 persons are the wives of diplomats. When the Government are looking at this matter again, ought they not to give consideration to the grant of a somewhat lesser immunity to the wives of diplomats than that which is granted to the diplomats themselves? It seems to me that that is a reasonable proposition.
The last question is on the point of motoring offences. The noble Marquess said, and I have no doubt quite rightly, that "C.D." plates do not confer any kind of immunity; that Her Majesty's Government have considered the control of "C.D." plates, which they think very complicated, and do not want to be asked any questions about it. That I understand. But it is the general impression of the public—at least, such an uninformed member of the public as myself—that "C.D." plates do convey a sort of "untouchability". Next time I am almost forced off the road by an unmannerly chauffeur of a car bearing "C.D." plates I shall fully avail myself of the privilege and shall convey the number to the noble Marquess and ask him to take appropriate action. But, my Lords, do the police know that these "C.D." plates do not really mean a thing, and that they ought to take these cases up when they get unmannerly drivers of cars carrying "C.D." plates? This is the kind of thing which causes concern to the general public, and I think quite rightly. If the noble Marquess can give us some reply on those points, we shall feel much happier about passing this Order, as I am sure we shall do this afternoon.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister about one

1289
point, and put it in the form of a question? As I understand it, those British citizens who are granted immunity are exempt from taxation only on their official salaries. My question is this: suppose an official, a British citizen, has a salary of £4,000 a year, and is also in the fortunate position of having a private income of £4,000 a year. Would the Special Commissioners in fact assess him in respect of £8,000, on his total income, or would they assess him in respect of £4,000 only? Because, if they disregard the £4,000, be is indeed getting a "round-the-corner" advantage on his British income, on British taxation. No doubt the Minister will be able to answer that query quite simply.
3.57 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has asked me to consider this matter both generally and from the legal aspect. I hope I shall take a very brief period of your Lordships' time, but in view of the great interest which your
Lordships showed in this subject I felt that I might usefully say a few words. On the general question, I do not want to go into the history of this matter at any length, but I think it is extremely important, when we are forming our general approach to it, that we should realise how the line came to be drawn. The immunity given to an Ambassador, of course, goes back centuries of our history, and the Act of Queen Anne which put it into statutory form is generally believed merely to express the Common Law as it existed at that time. But the interesting fact is that that continued without any substantial inroad until the end of the 1914–18 War; and, of course, it is that branch of the immunity (if I may use that word) which covers the vast majority of the 6,000 persons to whom the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred.
My Lords, so far as my researches go, there have been only three changes in that rule—to include the Arbitrators under The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and the Judges of the International Court. But the position did change when the world tried to introduce forms and instruments of international co-operation. Forty years ago officials of the League of Nations engaged on the business of the League were given, the right to have diplomatic privileges.
1290
Then towards the end of the Second World War, the Government, of which I had the honour to be a member, in 1944 passed the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act which made provision for privileges and immunities for International Organisations, of which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and foreign Governments were members. The Charter of the United Nations had a similar provision (I am summarising; noble Lords will not hold me to the foot of the letter); there was an International Convention in 1946, and in 1947 another which covered the Specialised Agencies. Then in 1949 the Government, under the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wanted to make sure that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and myself should not be released on the Continent of Europe under the ægis of the Council of Europe without having diplomatic immunity, and so secured it for the members of the Council of Europe. The next year our predecessors passed the Diplomatic Privileges (Extension) Act, and later changed that into the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Act, 1950, under which these Orders are made. My Lords, in order to be sure that I am not throwing the political ball about, I would add that in 1952 the Conservative Government gave diplomatic immunities to representatives of members of the Commonwealth.
I think that shows that the tendency is one which we have to accept, as my noble friend said, as the price of international co-operation. On the point which your Lordships raised, whether immunities were necessary, it is interesting that there was an Inter-Departmental Committee in 1949, which reported in July, 1951, and one of the things they reported was that the immunities then granted were either certainly or probably required by International Law, and that, subject to the position of a domestic servant, no change was recommended. My noble friend Lord Killearn stated shortly the reasons on which they relied, and I think it is just worth mentioning them as we are considering the whole subject. I put it in the words of my old friend the late Professor Lauterpacht, a Judge of the International Court and one of the leading international lawyers of our day. He said:

1291
"Diplomatic privileges and immunities are inseparable attributes of diplomatic envoys, since in order to be able to fulfil their duties envoys must be independent of the jurisdiction and control of the receiving State. Without these privileges they would be more or less dependent upon the goodwill of the Government".
The interesting thing is that that was confirmed, as I said, in 1949.
Now that is the position. I think the problem that has worried all your Lordships is as to what action we should take in view of the developing number of international and Commonwealth associations. I think there are two things to which we should direct our minds, and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has really dealt with them. In the first place, whenever it is possible there should be a limitation on the number of those who enjoy the full immunity, and we should secure that as many people as possible of those entitled to immunity are under the limited immunity. Your Lordships will see the difference; it is put conveniently between paragraph 9 and paragraph 10 of this Order. That raises, in turn, a number of questions. As has been pointed out, and as I think your Lordships entirely accept at this stage of the debate, this has been done in regard to E.F.T.A.; and as far as E.F.T.A. itself is concerned, of its officers only the Secretary-General would, under this Order, enjoy the full scale of immunity in this country. As my noble friend Lord Lansdowne pointed out, since the present holder of the office is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, he will enjoy only the lesser scale of immunity granted to other officers of E.F.T.A.
I think everyone agrees that immunity from suit and legal process in respect of words spoken and written is entirely essential. It would be quite hopeless if someone had to think whether some person would bring an action for libel or slander when he was making his report, and I think we are all clear on that point. As to what is "official duties", I agree with my noble friend that, in the end, that is a matter on which the court could decide
The second way in which we should approach it is to see what alleviation it is possible to give to those affected by the immunities. My noble and learned friend Lord Conesford said that you
1292
cannot give immunities without affecting people. There we come to the point that was raised, and raised very pertinently, by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. He was still rather worried about the motoring aspect of the matter. I have considered it, and apart from marginal, and on the whole rather fantastic, examples, motoring would seldom, under these Orders, be regarded as official duty except for persons employed as chauffeurs. The position, therefore, is that if someone with the limited immunity is going to run a car, he would, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought, in almost every case be compelled to take out a third-party insurance, because the danger of moving from official duties to any other would be so great. I do not think that the possibility of someone bringing a car over here and using it only for official duties is one that is very great.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but may I ask whether, under our law, you can drive a car on the road without third-party insurance? I thought that was against the law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. But we are considering whether people should have immunity from the law.
LORD KILLEARN: Yes, quite right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is the position. I am not dealing with the position of people in this country who are not in the diplomatic service or in the service of these international institutions. My noble friend is quite right about the ordinary citizen, and I advise him to renew his motor-car insurance policy.
LORD KILLEARN: But, from the practical point of view, could a man register his car? Because the first thing they would say is: "Where is your insurance?" How does he get over that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the point I am making is this; I am sorry if I did not make it clear. When someone has limited immunity, so that that immunity applies only to something he does in the course of his official duties, it is not likely that he will have a car over here which he will use solely for official duties. The variety of life

1293
is such that one may well move from an official duty into a private purpose after the start of the day, or even after the start of a journey. Therefore, if the car is liable to be used for both official duties and private purposes he will have to take out a third-party insurance according to the law. I hope that I have made it clear. I am grateful to my noble friend, as I wanted to make the point clear. With regard to those who have the full-scale immunity, as my noble friend said, we hope that they will insure; and in most cases there are the means, which he described, of ensuring that they will pay up.
I come to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, one of the few about which he was worried, in regard to insurance. I think that the important aspect of it is that the Association of Insurance Companies have undertaken not to invoke their clients' immunity to avoid paying compensation in dealing with claims for damages against them; and so far as I know, immunity under Orders similar to this one has never been invoked in a civil claim. I do not want to go into the legal technicalities with the noble Lord and take up your Lordships' time, but when the companies have undertaken that they will not do this—most policies, as the noble Lord knows, contain a clause that the company will have the right to run any case—I think that we can take it that they will stand by their undertaking. As the noble Lord knows, the Motor Insurance Bureau has given a similar undertaking with regard to those who are not insured for what I might call minimally culpable reasons.
So, my Lords, I think that we have provided alleviation there. Of course I will see that what the noble Lord suggests is looked into—that goes without saying. But I believe—and my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has explained the scheme in detail—that we have a method which is workable. We are keeping it under review and will consider what the noble Lord said.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, what it amounts to, then, is that the number of cases in which a British citizen might suffer by reason of the steps that have been taken will be very small indeed. In that case the difficulty of indemnifying the odd case would not be very great.
1294
Could not the Government go so far as to say that, in the odd case where the citizen was not covered by these arrangements, they would step in and see that he was indemnified.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should not like to say that there could not be such a case. As the noble Lord will realise, I cannot go further this afternoon than to say that the matter will be considered. But he will appreciate that I have dealt with those who have the limited immunity. We believe that those who have the full immunity will be covered; and if they are not there is still the machinery of waiver and of diplomatic pressure, which my noble friend mentioned, so that the field is covered. But I am not going to say that there could not be such a case, and I am quite prepared to see that it is looked into.
The same applies to the interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I do not think that the international consideration is yet at the stage when I can announce the final position. I think that the consideration ceased only a few days ago. I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied if I say that we will certainly look into his suggestion. Obviously, we will consider carefully the proposals which have been agreed by the international gathering—not only carefully, but also, naturally, sympathetically, because they have received support. The same applies to the other points which he raised, which I have noted and which I will see are considered. I do not think that he will expect me to go further. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has asked me to give an immediate answer to a point on income tax. In all my 30 years at the Bar, I was never brave enough to do that. All I can say is that the noble Lord's reasoning seems to me eminently reasonable, if I may repeat the word, but I should be glad if he would allow me to consider the point and write to him. I am fully aware of the point he raised.
I am sorry to have taken up so much of your Lordships' time, especially of those waiting impatiently for the Air Estimates debate, but I sensed a real feeling of concern amongst noble Lords in discussing this matter. I hope that your Lordships will now feel that certainly my noble friend, and to a lesser

1295
degree I myself, have tried to meet the feeling of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

THE AIR ESTIMATES
4.19 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON rose to call attention to the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for Air to accompany the Air Estimates, 1961–1962 (Cmnd. 1292); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, every time I come to read and consider the various papers and reports of the debates we have on defence, I become more appalled at the complexity and, if I may say so for the Government's comfort, the difficulties that confront Governments in arriving at any sort of consistent policy. I shall make the remarks I have to make with regard to the Air Estimates and our Air Force policy, some of them critical, fully conscious of the difficulties that confront the Government.
This, in a sense, is a continuing debate. Each year the situation changes a little or a lot. In fact, there has been rather a big change as compared with last year, and we might do a good deal worse than pick up the debate where it was last year and modify it by such new information as has come to hand or such new changes as the Government have made in defence policy. I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, on joining us here. I am sorry he is not to take part in the debate to-day—perhaps he feels that he still knows too much about it—but I hope he will in future years. I am sure that your Lordships feel sorrow at the passing of a former Secretary of State for Air, Lord Stansgate, who was himself also a pilot and a member of the Air Force in two wars. Whether we shall be fortified by the arrival of his son, also a pilot, remains to be seen.
I think we are all agreed that, whatever else we may have to say, the R.A.F. goes on with its usual high standard of efficiency, of which we are all so proud. I should like to start by making some nice remarks to the Government. First, I would congratulate the Air Ministry—and this applies to all the Services—on
1296
the great improvement they have made in the presentation of their case. This year's Memorandum is better than the last one. It is an intelligent and reasonable document. The fact that the Secretary of State is debarred from giving very much information is not wholly his fault; and what information is given—and there is a good deal—has been well set out. I am sure that we are all particularly appreciative of the sort of interpretative comments that appear on page 20, where the major variations of the particular Estimates appear, because they are most helpful. This, in my view, is a model way to present a case, and we should encourage those who give thought to this type of matter to go on thinking of even better ways of doing it. The Air Ministry have done particularly well, and really rather better than the Ministry of Defence, in their Paper. I shall reserve my remarks on the Admiralty document until we come to the naval debate.
I propose to deal with what might be called some of the "bread and butter" matters before I attempt to delve into the difficult field of strategy and some of the matters that are more specifically raised in detail in the Estimates and the Memorandum. I turn, first, to the question of Service pay and conditions. Here, again, I congratulate the Government on the way they have implemented the Grigg Report. Knowing their propensity for ignoring the recommendations of Committees and Royal Commissions they appoint, I think it is particularly satisfactory that in this case they should have adopted them so wholeheartedly. Whatever criticisms may come from time to time from outside, I am sure we can properly feel that our Services are adequately paid. I am fairly familiar, as many of your Lordships are, with pay and prospects in civil life and in industry, and I entirely agree with the Government when they say that the prospects for the young officer are in every way competitive, and in some ways I should say a good deal better than in other walks of life. I feel that conditions of pay, and certain of the conditions of Service, though not all, are reasonably good for the skilled man in the ranks. These are entirely right, and we do not need to justify them. We know the amount of dislocation that Service men and their families have to

1297
put up with. The only point I would make is that it is up to the Government to see that these rates are not eroded by a decline in the value of money, or that, if such an erosion takes place, they are maintained.
From the account we have been given, the recruiting situation seems to be reasonably satisfactory. We should be interested to know of any new steps or plans the Government have for improving recruiting. There are still certain posts in the R.A.F. which are difficult to fill, and I wonder whether the standards of entry are not too high, and whether, because they have these high standards of selection, the authorities do not sometimes apply them a little too stringently. The ability to cross a stream on a narrow log is not in many cases, I should have thought, an absolute requirement for an officer, say, in the Education Corps or the Engineers; and the sort of survival tests that may be essential for a platoon commander may or may not be essential in the Air Force. I am not saying that we do not want them all to be supermen, but it is necessary to man up with the best material available. Possibly some further improvement could be made in selection techniques, so that there is not such a high rate of rejection, either initially or, indeed, at the later stages. I would ask the Government to look at this. In passing, I do not know whether we should shed a tear on the closing of Henlow, which is being combined with Cranwell, but I am sure we mark the value of that institution and all those who passed through it.
I want to return again this year, as always, to the question of recruiting for the Women's Royal Air Force and the extent to which it is possible to transfer to women work done by men. Here I am not quite so sure whether prospects for the Women's Royal Air Force, certainly in the ranks, are as good as in civil life. It is difficult to make these comparisons. I think this is a matter, as in all aspects of recruiting, which has to be looked at selectively.
There is one other small point I should like to make on administration. I was interested to read the reference to work study, and I want to repeat the suggestion I made that some limited funds should be available to commanders-in-chief—and not merely abroad, where
1298
there is sometimes a greater degree of financial independence, but in this country—so that they can implement minor organisation and method work. I understand that most commands have some operational research or an "O. and M." officer. In order to give effect to changes likely to give greater efficiency it is frequently necessary to spend money. It may be found that there will be a significant economy in manpower that will amply repay the money, if you move, say, a chap from one side of a building to another, because in the course of a few months' time you may save the cost of one chap running between the points. But you find you cannot do this, because the commander-in-chief has no local money for the purpose, and application has to go up in the usual way.
I urge that some consideration should be given to a certain degree of financial independence, which industry is always trying to get into its dependent parts. This is a matter of which I have heard officers in the Services complain. It is not that "O. and M." work is not being done, but it is sometimes not possible to give effect to it. Anybody who has tried to give effect to organisation and method improvements will be aware that it is frequently necessary to spend money in order to get the major economies that can be achieved. In saying this, I think we ought to recognise that the Services have played a big part in pioneering "O and M." work. I would suggest that this is a matter on which the Government publicity officers in the Royal Air Force might give rather more information to the public. It would be informative and useful to industry. I am well aware that "O. and M." officers and similar people in the Civil Service do participate with industry, but I think it would be interesting to know a little more about it; and it would be valuable, also, in the view that is presented to the public of the Services. The general public are far too inclined to think that the Services are always bureaucratic and rather inefficient bodies.
I should like now to turn to the subject of air traffic control, which is also mentioned in the Memorandum. Here again, I think the public have a rather bad view of the Royal Air Force. In fact, I think if one talks to people about them they have a vision of the skies as a place filled by cautious, careful

1299
and extremely sober civilian aircraft pilots, with occasionally rather large-moustached young men of the fighter type, buzzing these aircraft. No picture could be further from the truth. In fact, the Royal Air Force takes immense trouble in developing air traffic control, and I think the degree to which there has been a reduction in accidents is a measure of the attention that is paid to safety. This is a very difficult technical problem, and it is a matter for co-operation between the civilian and the Service authorities. But I am satisfied that certainly the Royal Air Force are very well aware of their part and duty in this matter.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer before I turn to the subject of the deterrent, which always takes up so much of our time; and that is the question of the R.A.F. Regiment. I noticed that paragraph 64 of the Memorandum rather suggests that the rôle of the R.A.F. Regiment is changing. Are they really responsible now for loading aircraft? For all I know they always have been, or have been for some time. But it rather sounds as if they are becoming the Royal Air Force Service Corps, as wall as fighting troops—and the R.A.F. Regiment were always intended to be a fighting regiment, trained with a specific rôle, which was complementary to the safety of the R.A.F. It is important that they should not be diverted from that—at least not without our knowing. One can well see that it would be easy to turn them into a sort of local Pioneer Corps, with spare chaps walking around. I also noticed that they are responsible for fire and rescue services. I take it that this is not air-sea rescue, but it suggests that it would be interesting to have a fairly full account—perhaps not to-day—of the work of the R.A.F. Regiment.
Having dealt with these comparatively uncontroversial matters, I should like to turn again to what might be called the main debate, on the question of the long-term and short-term rôle of the Air Force, particularly in relation to its rôle as the principal deliverer of the deterrent. It is clear that, each year that goes by, this debate takes place against an increasingly changing situation. Blue Streak is no more, except perhaps for
1300
space purposes, and the whole policy of the deterrent is more than ever in question. It is not merely in question among my friends in my Party: there are people everywhere who think about these matters. One finds that in discussions within the ranks of the Party opposite, in the newspapers, among war correspondents, and so on.
We must bear in mind in this debate that we are discussing, not merely this year's Air Force, but the Air Force of at least ten years ahead, and possibly further. The length of time that it takes to bring modern equipment into operation is very much of that order—and, indeed, longer. We have the example of the Britannic or Belfast, which we have been talking about for several years now; and it will take another four or five years before they are in service. It is the total absence of any long-term view (and I am not trying to say this to harry the Government, because I appreciate their difficulties) that is so worrying. It may be that it is impossible for them to take a long-term view—I do not know.
But whatever we may think about the use of V-bombers—and I shall have something to say about this—and even if we get Skybolt (which again I accept that we think we are going to get, as well as Blue Steel) I cannot really believe that any of this side will be operational in another ten years time—or will it? It may be that the Government think that bombers armed with some form of ballistic missile will continue. We have had talk in the past about a quite different type of aircraft, a sort of transport aircraft, a vehicle which would merely lift the ultimate missile into the air. But we do not know anything about this. We have no idea what our defence policy will be in another ten years time. It was said that when Blue Streak went we should have no Air Force deterrent. Whether it is intended in future that Polaris submarines will supply the deterrent is another matter. I shall have something to say about that.
The fact is that, as the Government have said, 10 to 15 per cent. of our defence effort goes into the deterrent and is spent in the Royal Air Force. This figure is something between £150 million and £200 million—about 40 per cent. of the Air Force Budget. I think the

1301
majority of us agree—and I certainly take this view—that we were right to build up our deterrent, or our share of the deterrent, whatever we call it; and, secondly, that there is no doubt that our strategic medium bomber force armed with nuclear bombs or hydrogen bombs is, and has been, a highly efficient and effective weapon. Here again, the question is: will it be for much longer?
I mentioned Polaris submarines. We shall have an opportunity later to discuss whether the Polaris submarine is any more credible, for other reasons. But it seems to me inconceivable that the strategic deterrent, even if it does not go
for other reasons, will be fulfilled by manned bombers in another ten years. We should like to know what the Government have to say about this. Once Blue Streak went, the matter changed. Here I should like to digress to ask the noble Earl about a matter which I know used to be nearest to his heart before he went on to those Benches (and the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald is also interested in it) that is, what are the Government's thoughts about the development of the Blue Streak space project. This is not the time to discuss it, but I should like to know, since the Government are working on this, who they think is going to work it if it comes about. Is it to be a Service responsibility? Will it be run by a civilian administration, or will the R.A.F. take the responsibility? I am just as convinced as I know the noble Earl (to be of the extreme importance, on economic and other grounds, of not leaving this field entirely to the Americans and the Russians, any more than we or other countries would have left the steam engine or the aeroplane to the big Powers of the day.
I should like now to leave the "ten years ahead" view, and return to this happy phrase that is so frequently used, the "middle 'sixties" which is the nearest the Government ever seem to get to the present, day. I am wondering how long they are going to leave these Thor missiles sitting up, exposed and extremely vulnerable, and how long they are going to be an effective and credible part of the Western deterrent. I do not know. But certainly if Blue Streak was not "on" Thor is even less "on". I think I have made clear that I have not myself been concerned in these moral
1302
arguments about the rightness or wrongness of our having the nuclear weapon. I have always thought that, however sincere were those who wished to abolish it on moral grounds, it was an evasion, and there was no point between total abolition or full acceptance of ail aspects of warfare. I think we have, as I said, been right to have had the deterrent.
Without going into the motives of those who were carried off in such large numbers to Bow Street the other day, I would question whether it is right to continue with Bomber Command in its present form. None of us ever wants to scrap anything, whether it is a battleship or a bomber or a unit, which we see has an intrinsic quality of its own, but I have already mentioned that 40 per cent. of the Air Force effort goes into Bomber Command. It is in fact very largely the raison d'être of the Air Force to-day. We have a lot of information about its very high efficiency and we accept the statements that there is high efficiency and that they can get the aircraft off the ground at tremendous speed. But once you establish that sort of priority, it inevitably means that the other parts of the organisation will suffer, and there is no doubt—unless the noble Earl can correct me—that there is gross under-manning of certain non-Bomber Command units.
I have heard of fitters in some parts of the Air Force who are doing as much as a 78-hour week. There is no doubt that some of the electronics men, perhaps involved in operating not very up-to-date radar and such equipment in traffic control, are having to work very long hours. I do not say they are grumbling or that morale is anything but good, but this is the consequence of an emphasis which I accept has rightly been given to the importance of Bomber Command. I think we ought not to be afraid of considering scrapping these aircraft if, in fact, their rôle is past and there is better use for the money.
The one thing that I think has emerged in recent discussions on defence is the importance of spreading our attenuated military strength a great deal further. Unless the Government are going back to National Service—and there are many reasons why they should not—some way must be found to enable the Army, in its lire brigade rôle, to move very much more rapidly. I should have thought

1303
that one of the worst failures at the moment in Government defence -policy is the failure to produce a really adequate Transport Command. We know that Transport Command has been expanded and the air-lift has been increased three times and six times; we have heard this figure of three times on a number of occasions. We accept that there has been a great deal of improvement. But when it comes to the actual exercises like the last exercise we had last year, "Starlight", a really ludicrously small amount of equipment, 175 tons, was carried for the Army. The Government have thought again since then and they have added in the helicopters and some other equipment that was carried and get it up to 600 tons, but it is still not anything like enough.
Anybody with connections with the Army and the Services will know of the inadequacy of our transport services in the strategic or indeed in the tactical rôle. It is not as if Transport Command, largely expanded, would not have a use in peace time. They could increasingly do, as I am glad to see they are already doing, trooping and movement for the Services. I should have thought it perfectly reasonable to get to a stage where to a large extent, the Services carried their own equipment and men, whether it be the Navy, Air Transport or Transport Command.
We need equally, more short-range aircraft. Again we are well aware of the development of the Argosy, and, despite criticisms of it that have been made, especially in another place, I accept that it will be a good aircraft. But we shall need them. Above all, we shall need not only a few but actual squadrons of helicopters. I would ask the Government what is happening in the way of other kinds of vertical takeoff, whether it be helicopters or the more specialised kinds.
Finally, I come to this very sore subject of the Britannic or the Belfast. Whether by calling it the Belfast it is hoped that some of the obloquy which has attached to the long delays in the ordering of this aircraft will be escaped I do not know, but certainly this is a very controversial aircraft. I am told that it was certainly not at the top of the list of designs which were submitted to the Air Ministry. Whereas I
1304
fully accept that Governments have to take into account political and economic factors, I think it is unfortunate that so much of our aircraft ordering policy seems to have gone wrong. It is not only the Britannic. We remember the case of the Swift. The trouble really about the Britannic from the British interest point of view is that we need it now, not in 1964–65. Here, again, perhaps we could be given whatever is the most up-to-date estimate for completion, as we ought to have it now.
This is where we begin to doubt whether the Government are really determined to go in for the interdependence which we all so freely talk about. There are in existence perfectly suitable transport aircraft which we could either have ordered or have manufactured by now. I have mentioned in particular the C.130. Ought there not to be a N.A.T.O. transport aircraft? I am sold that the Germans are committing themselves to buying a French aircraft which is also under development. I was talking the other day to a German industrialist who is making exactly the same complaints about mistakes in that country as I am suggesting are being made now with regard to the Britannic. It is not as if when we manufactured an American-designed aircraft the result would be wholly American. It is likely that British engines—Tyne engines or whatever might be suitable for the C.130—would be installed and there could be an export of those engines. This is, I think, quite a serious charge.
I should like to turn to another aircraft, and that is the Lightning. I am not in a position to judge whether some of the criticisms of the Lightning are fair, or whether it will in fact achieve the speed that it is expected to do. There is no doubt that other countries have aircraft that can achieve that speed. I believe that in fact the Lightning was an adaptation of a research aircraft, and I am also told—I do not know whether it is true—that no man with a thigh length of more than 17 inches can fly in it because he would not be able to be ejected in the event of having to bale out. I should like to know whether that is true or not. Does it mean that in future there will be a special requirement for small fighter pilots? We accept that this may be necessary for a spaceman. Certainly

1305
this seems to have been the sort of slightly political decision that was taken, because at one time it was quite clear that the Government thought fighters had had their day. They changed their mind, and I do not blame them for changing their mind, as I think they will have to do on a number of other matters in regard to defence policy.
Finally, in regard to aircraft, I would ask the Government how the T.S.R.2 is coming along and whether they really hope it is going to be the remarkable aircraft people believe it will be. I sometimes wonder whether this highly-specialised equipment is in fact always so important for the sort of fire brigade rôle that is necessary. I believe that the T.S.R.2 is equipped for tactical nuclear weapons. I would rather have those weapons carried in a bomber than have them as close to the front line as the Government propose to have them in regard to the equipment of their artillery.
I could not leave a debate on the Air Estimates without making a reference to Coastal Command. Again, I ask the Government what they are going to do about the replacement for the Shackleton. I am more than ever worried this year, not merely because I think we ought to be getting a more up-to-date aircraft which can fly fast to its area of patrol, but because the present Shackleton is beginning to wear out in a big way, so that there is every prospect of a good deal of metal fatigue. The point finally comes when it really is not worth while going on rebuilding the aircraft. It may well be that we ought to order either some more Mark III Shackletons or, better still, a new type of aircraft. This does not alter the fact that there are real doubts whether we are taking the possibility of submarine warfare seriously. I share those doubts. I am extremely doubtful whether a generalised submarine war with the use of atomic weapons will ever come about. But, at the moment, unless Coastal Command is re-equipped and, indeed, more attention is given to underwater detection than is at present being given, I doubt whether the Navy will regard the Air Force as taking this matter seriously. Then, once again, we shall have this passionate battle and the fourteenth attempt, perhaps, to take Coastal Command from the Air Force.
All that I have been saying illustrates the difficulty in arriving at a defence policy. What we knew yesterday for a certainty we suddenly find to-day is no longer a certainty at all. I think it is likely—I hope the noble Earl can confirm this—that, whatever happens, there will continue to be a great deal of flying in the Royal Air Force. I think that, however much we may specialise in very advanced and sophisticated equipment, at the same time there will be more and more general purpose flying, whether of transport or limited tactical operation.
What is the future of the Air Force? I think that Bomber Command's future is in doubt; Fighter Command has been reconstituted—when I say "reconstituted", I mean saved by a change of policy; Coastal Command may or may not have any aircraft in another ten years' time if they are all worn out. The only one that clearly is going to be built up is Transport Command. In those circumstances, we cannot tell what the ultimate rôle of the two Services will be. This applies even more, in my opinion, to the Navy, and it brings me back to a plea that I have made year after year: that one of the reasons we get into these difficulties is that we have three separate Services, each bargaining for its own. It is a fact that in the Royal Air Force there are more officers, to my knowledge, who do see the need for a single Service. Virtually no progress has been made since the end of the war in this respect. There has been amalgamation of chaplains, but that is only a very small swallow so far as the summer of integration is concerned. Perhaps we have not even got that.
This is a serious matter, because it is inevitable that when you are talking to Service officers they will think in terms of their own needs and of their own loyalties. It is only human nature that they should do so. I should hope that, even if there were some integration, it would be perfectly possible, whether in the Air Force or the Navy, to preserve traditions, as the Army does in its regiments and its corps, and that we should then get a policy which would enable us to have a much clearer picture of what our Services were intended to do. It may well be that, in the long

1307
run, the R.A.F. will become a component of some United Nations or international defence body. We all hope for that. In the meantime, there would be perhaps clearer thinking and, indeed, more confidence among those officers who are concerned with planning, if the Government would, once and for all, have a more determined approach to this problem of integration.
Having said that, I would only repeat that I am convinced, as are those of your Lordships who have been connected with the Air Force, that its standards are as high as ever, and that as soon as it is given a clear rôle it will be able to discharge that rôle. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.57 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships are grateful for the wide review that Lord Shackleton has just given us. Particularly do I wish to associated myself with the first remarks the noble Lord made about the great services rendered by the former Secretary of State, Lord Ward of Witley, to the Royal Air Force. The fact that to-day we come in the main to praise, rather than to criticise, is due to no small extent to the noble Viscount and his colleagues on the Air Council during the time when he was Secretary of State. I feel that in the debate to-day we come to help and to suggest, and not to carp, even when we wish to question.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on one point on the debate. My own view is that this is not an appropriate occasion to discuss the major political aspects of defence, the possession of a deterrent by this country, or the merits or demerits of the pavement-sitters in Whitehall. I think all that belongs to a larger Defence debate, and not to a single Service matter. So far as I am concerned. I want in the main to deal with matters affecting the Royal Air Force. Nevertheless, I should like to register and record some creditable facts.
The first is, that we have a deterrent to-day, both defensive and offensive, in Firestreak and in the Lightning, which is in service to carry Firestreak. We have an effective V-Bomber Force, ready and able to deliver the nuclear deter-
1308
rent. Thirdly, we are at least moving towards a Transport Command aimed at meeting most of the three Services' requirements. I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton did in condemning so critically the present state of Transport Command. I would, however, agree with him that it is still insufficient. Nevertheless, let us give credit where credit is due. As the Memorandum says, it has multiplied three times in the last ten years. I think that is an extremely creditable fact.
I want to say a word about personnel. The recruiting of the R.A.F. is, generally speaking, satisfactory, except for one particular category about which I will say a word in a moment. As regards the Women's Royal Air Force, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, rather doubted the prospects of a career for women in that Service. I think the prospects are very good. Not only are the Service prospects excellent, but they are such good-looking ladies that I cannot help feeling that their prospects in other walks of life are equally good.
LORD SHACKLETON: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It is their prospects in other walks of life that worries me. I was not sure whether their pay and conditions were good enough to attract them. But I fully agree about the importance and value of the work they do.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, so far as I am told, the pay and conditions are attracting the requisite entry.
The most serious shortage of the Royal Air Force is in aircrews. In his speech in another place the Secretary of State said that the position gave cause for anxiety: they were, he said, a few hundred short. That is grave, because if the strength is a few hundred short last year and a few hundred short this year the deficiency is a constantly growing one and ever harder to make good. I understand that the entry is a few hundred short this year, but to that must be added a considerable deficiency from last year. So it may well be that the total shortage to-day is over four figures.
I think that the fault for that lies largely with the Government. It is just

1309
as well to face the fact that it is the 1957 White Paper which is largely responsible for the aircrew shortage to-day, due to the impression given that there was virtually no career, no future, for pilots who wished to join the Royal Air Force to fly man-piloted aircraft. If that is so, I think it is incumbent upon the Government to reassure on careers and to do what they can to repair the damage of that 1957 White Paper. I believe that the Air Ministry should make the facts far more widely known than at. present, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, what will be the defence policy when the present V-bomber force becomes obsolete in from seven to ten years is still unknown.
I do not think it would be right for us to try to press the Government to say anything on what is likely to happen; nor on their views as to what is likely to happen seven to ten years hence. What they should make widely known is that even if the present V-bomber force is replaced by non-manned weapons—which in my view is very unlikely—the requirement for pilots in the Royal Air Force will be much greater than it is to-day. I hope the Minister will feel that that is a point which, with the authority of the Government, should be stressed and made widely known. Because if it were blazoned throughout the country it would go some way to redress the wrong impressions of the 1957 White Paper.
My second point is that I hope the Ministry will make more widely known the very cogent remarks of the Secretary of State in another place when he summarised the opportunities of careers in the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force to-day, I believe, presents a career comparable in rewards to that in any branch of civil life. What career can offer a young man entering the service at 20 retirement at 32, with a capital gratuity of £4,000. or if he stays until he is 38, with a pension of £500 a year for life? Those are pay and conditions which are really remarkably fine. But I am afraid that they are not widely enough known at the present time.
Then there is another reason for the shortage, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. Quite rightly, the R.A.F. require high standards—medically, of character and of education—for entry into the pilot category.
1310
My noble friend Lord Shackleton questioned whether the standards are too high. My own view is that the standards are not too high, but it may be that they are being applied too rigidly. The question is this: Are we insisting too rigidly on the achievement of standards at the time of entry? Times change, and requirements are always becoming greater technically. I remember the Commonwealth Joint Training Plan with which I had something to do in the war. It was the view of the Air Staff in 1938–39 that only a sort of super-men could fly these modern fighters. I remember that the Hurricane was considered an aircraft which a select few might possibly be able to fly. Within two years, every little boy joining the R.A.F. was flying a Hurricane within a few months. The Spitfire also was considered at first the aeroplane for the super-man, almost. Within two or three years it was considered one of the easiest aircraft to fly in the R.A.F. So to-day it may be we are thinking that the technical requirements are so tremendous that it is necessary to have a standary of entry, a rigidity of the standard of entry, which in fact tends to eliminate good material—material which might make the grade if only it were allowed a longer time, if there were more flexibility in the time of courses.
The Air Staff of 1939 would have been horrified at the Staff of 1945 accepting standards of education, and even of physique and what I call traditional background, which we were glad to have in 1945. All during the war whenever we wanted more aircrews we were never short, because, as it were, as we touched each lower stratum in the social scale we got just as good material as in the stratum above. It took longer to train them, and it was sometimes thought more difficult. But the character was there; the training was there, and the keenness was there. It may well be that the shortage to-day could be eased by repeating something of the outlook we had during the war when, though the demand for aircrews was tremendous, the supply never dried up.
It is an interesting thought to-day that if one meets these young men of the R.A.F. one sees that there has been a big change in the last five or six years in the Royal Air Force. To-day the young pilots are serious, dedicated experts in

1311
their work, men of great technical skill. They play hard in their time of relaxation, but they are extraordinarily serious men in applying themselves to their duties. My wish, which I hope all noble Lords, in all parts of the House, will share, is that in this debate we should send out a message of congratulation and good wishes to those dedicated young men who are flying these complex modern aircraft.
My Lords, I have only one more subject to touch on for a very few moments—it was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I wonder how much longer we shall go on having what I term single Service debates. I think we must face the fact—and it has to be faced reluctantly, I think, within the Services—that we are gradually but surely travelling along the road of the three Services' evolution which can reach at some time in the future only one end—that is, a unified Service. I confess that if somebody had asked me about this ten or fifteen years ago I should not have taken the view I take to-day. But I think, looking at the picture, that that is the inevitable end. In the fields of planning, equipment, administration and operations the old lines of demarcation between the Services are getting more and more blurred. We have Joint Planning and Intelligence staffs, and from their work flow the tasks for the three Services. Why should separation, with co-ordination, be considered better than complete integration? It is a question which I think the Government have to ask themselves.
Then, my Lords, as regards equipment, with the ever-increasing number of technical weapons it seems to me that unification is inevitable if overlap and wasteful allocation of short-supply equipment is to cease. It is interesting, if one looks at the Estimates, to see that the Royal Air Force to-day has aircraft and helicopters; it has ships; it has ground troops; it has rocket missiles; it has nuclear tactical and strategic weapons. The Navy has aircraft; it has helicopters; it has ground troops; it has rocket missiles; it has nuclear tactical and strategic weapons. The Army, too, has aircraft; it has helicopters; it has rockets; it has nuclear tactical and strategic weapons. It is really quite a mix-up, because they all have the same
1312
thing, and the opportunities for confusion are great.
It seems that here is infinite opportunity for overlap and for waste as all the three Services attempt to get their supplies satisfied. All three Services have a need for basic research and development. If basic research is common, applied research is not, because each of the three Services is carrying out its own programme for applied research; and all three Services have their own development programme. Yet, at the same time, we in this country are short of scientists and we are short of technicians; and I cannot be convinced that the picture I have painted of the shortages, and the competition in respect to those shortages, is one that counts for the greatest efficiency.
In the field of administration a considerable amount has been done, but in the direction of co-ordination rather than of unification. The N.A.A.F.I. is an example of unification in practice. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, spoke of the Chaplains' Department. I understand that there are still three Chaplains' Departments. Our Deity is common to us all and it seems to me rather difficult to understand, except to justify a Chaplain-in-Chief, why we should continue to have three Chaplains' Departments to worship a common God. As to the Education Branch, I find it difficult Ito justify three elementary Education Branches, one for the Admiralty, one for the Air Force and one for the Army. I find it difficult to justify three separate Provost Marshal Forces and Service Police. These are matters in the lower echelon of administration, but right up the line, as tasks merge, so does separation on the level of administration become more and more difficult to justify.
Against all this, of course, one has to bear in mind the Service traditions and the separate careers in the Services. When war comes, to-day, however, it is only for civilians. If war comes, it is only a matter of luck whether a young man puts on light blue, dark blue or khaki. The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head, but many a man did not know which Service he was going into when he was called up in the last war. In the past, I think it was essential, and certainly preferable, to be the son of a seaman to get into the Navy;

1313
and it was almost necessary to live within the sight of salt water in order to be a sailor. That old idea has nearly gone. During the last war it was found that the man from the Midlands made just as good a sailor as the man who lived on the sea coast. I do not wish (and I do not think there is any need) to trample on tradition, or unduly speed a process which I believe is inevitable; but I hope that the Government will think on this matter of unification, and will think with detached brains. By that, I mean not put the Service Ministers on to working out a scheme—because they never will do so—but ask Ministers who are not in the Service Departments to consider the future of developments towards unification. If such a study as I propose is made now, I think that it will help when the time comes; and it may even speed up the process of time towards the result which I believe is, in the long run, inevitable and must be accepted.
5.16 p.m.
LORD TEDDER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, raised such an enticing collection of hares that if I were to start chasing them I should end up in a circle; but I should like to pick up one or two of them. First of all, I would agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in what he said about the effects on recruiting of the 1957 White Paper. Difficulty in recruiting is not a new problem; we have had it again and again. We had it very much, as he mentioned, before the last war. I happen to have been personally connected with training away back in 1917–18 and again in the early and mid-'twenties, and I ended up as Director of Training in the Air Ministry in the mid-'thirties. I felt very strongly, looking at it both from the point of view of the training commander and of the staff at the Air Ministry, that wastage during training was not a sign of bad training; it was not a sign of weakness; it was a sign of faulty selection and of not getting the right people. There is nothing more dangerous than to try to lower the standard once the men are in the machine and being trained. Once they are there, your standard should stay put; and, if they do not come up to it from a flying point of view, that is that. It is wise to be ruthless.
1314
I agree with both speakers, however, that there is probably something (as it was put by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye) about being too rigid in the standards set for entry into the Service. I agree that those standards should be flexible, and subject to frequent review. I certainly could not put my finger on a spot now and say, "That standard is too high". The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, mentioned one, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the requirement to cross a stream on a plank. I do not know whether that was a physical fitness test before be came in. I do not think it matters. I cannot believe that anyone would turn an entrant down on that one test. At any rate, I would say again: for goodness sake! do not lower the standard for final entry into the operational squadrons.
Now as regards recruiting, the publicity which has recently been given in the
Press to the conditions and the prospects of a career in the Royal Air Force has, to my mind, been very impressive. I think it has been first-class, and one only hopes it will pay dividends. I have a feeling that one of the troubles in the past, and at the present, has been the opposition, or perhaps the apathy, of schoolmasters. I know from personal experience that that was a serious factor before the war, and I have reason to believe that it is still a factor. Here I put in a word for the university squadrons. I gather that their existence is once main threatened on the basis that they do not bring a sufficient number of recruits into the Service to justify the expense of maintaining them.
Here I must declare my interest. In the first place, I was myself a university entrant in 1914, not to an air squadron, because there was not one then, but to the A.T.C. Also, I happen to have been very closely concerned in the early stages with, of course, the Cambridge squadron, and later on with the Oxford squadron. In those days, I always made it clear that getting a recruit was not the primary object of the squadron; its primary object was, to put it bluntly, to aerate both the undergraduates and, indirectly, the College and University authorities. I gather than that position has now been slightly altered. However, the danger is

1315
there, because, going back to the early days, I found that schoolmasters, heads of colleges, and many other people were strongly opposed to this squadron on every ground. They thought it was composed rather of "handlebar types", who would be diverted from their studies by flying solo. Actually, they were not allowed to fly solo first of all, because it is bad for the nerves. It would not take much to get that sort of opposition boiling up again, so I ask that the recruiting aspect be not pushed too hard, because I do not think it will help. I think you can get recruits without that.
As I have declared my interest already, may I say I feel, very naturally, that there is a special place in the Services, and particularly in the Air Force, for the undergraduate and the young graduate. I do not think he is better than the grammar school entrant at all, but you get a rather different outlook, perhaps a rather more critical outlook, which I think is well worth having. To sum up, I would strongly urge that in assessing the value of the university squadrons, full credit should be given not only to recruits but also to the intangible and invaluable effect they have throughout the country in widening the interest and the knowledge of the public in aeronautical matters. I think this goes deep, and this is the worst time in the world to cut off such a source of inspiration and education.
The question of a single service is so important that I cannot resist having a small shot to try to get it in the jug. Logically, the case for a single Service is absolutely unanswerable; there is no question about that. But I have a distrust of logic when applied too closely to human affairs. This matter of a single Service is primarily a human question. One can say: "Why should you have a different captain for a soldier, a sailor and an airman?" It is because soldiers, sailors and airmen are absolutely different people. I know it is illogical, but it is a fact. They do react differently—and so they should, because they live a very different life and have very different responsibilities. I could go on to elaborate this subject, but the basic point is that I distrust logic applied to human affairs, and this is essentially a matter of humanity.
1316
May I just raise one other point, to follow up, and that is with regard to this question of tactical and strategic bombers? It was a surprise to me to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, casting Bomber Command into the futuristic fogs of the 1957 White Paper. I did not think we were so near the abyss as that. I could not say more strongly that I utterly disagree with him on that point. We have not a clue as to how and when this push-button thing will ever start, and I suggest that this is no time to start havering about the existence of Bomber Command. I do not say that because I happen to have served in the Air Force. As a matter of fact, I never served with Bomber Command, so it is not of any special interest to me. But when I was in the Mediterranean during the war, I think I was largely responsible, and I plead guilty to it, for starting the distinction between tactical and strategical air operations. I may not be the only authority for that, but I know I started it. I did that to try to define "air operations" in terms which my soldier and my Admiral colleagues could understand.
Here we come back to the single Service again. I found that my Admiral and I used the same scale map. My General used an entirely different scale; his map went not much beyond the range of his guns. The Admiral was thinking strategically, one might say, of the other side of the Mediterranean. I tried to define "tactical operations" as those in direct support of the naval or land operations, and "strategic operations" as air operations going beyond that; the long-range operation, sometimes aiming at long-term effects. I am not at all clear now, when these terms are used quite extensively to apply not only to air operations but to weapons themselves. That, I feel, is doubtful and dangerous.
I am firmly convinced that the mutual threat of nuclear attack has been, and I trust will remain, a vital factor preventing the outbreak of war. I believe that the Bomber forces outlined in the Secretary of State's Memorandum can, and will, make a very real contribution towards that end. But I am not clear as to what is meant by the phrase "tactical nuclear weapons". All I would say is that I trust that there is no idea that it would be possible to isolate

1317
a "tactical nuclear" war from an allout—or perhaps I should say, an all-a nuclear war. I am sure that once a nuclear weapon has been launched, the deterrent as such will have failed and the floodgates will be opened wide.
5.29 p.m.
LORD MERRWALE: My Lords, there are one or two aspects of the Memorandum that I should like to touch on, but before doing so I would associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, with regard to the high efficiency of the Royal Air Force, and also echo his words, and those of my noble friend, Lord Balfour of inchrye, about how much we owe to the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, in achieving that high degree of efficiency.
With regard to the financial provision, we see that there is to be an estimated total expenditure of £526·67 million, but there is a decrease of £13·85 million, compared with 1960–61, on aircraft and stores. We are told that that is due to smaller expenditure on guided weapons, in view of the approaching completion of the deployment of Bloodhound Mark I. But what of Mark II, with its greatly improved performance and air transport ability? Is one to assume that it is not yet available, and that the Ministry of Aviation is still responsible for its development?
With regard to that Ministry we find from the Defence White Paper this year that its expenditure will be £190·2 million, against £185–35 million last year—that is, an increase of only £4·85 million—on research into and development of a variety of projects. On the one hand, we are told that the deployment of Bloodhound Mark I will be completed in 1961–62 and that orders will be placed for Bloodhound Mark II. On the other hand, we are told, in Appendix A, that we expect 10 spend less on guided weapons. Bloodhound Mark II is to be used to reinforce Overseas Command. Can we take it, then, that this missile will be deployed with the R.A.F. in Germany?
With regard to the R.A.F. in Germany, I regret that there is only a brief mention of that Command in the Memorandum, in paragraphs 49, 50 and 51. Nevertheless I welcome the statement in paragraph 49 that
1318
"New navigation equipment is being fitted to improve the capacity of the Canberra tactical atomic strike force to operate in all weathers."
But these aircraft are to be superseded by the T.S.R. 2. Therefore, I should like to see in the Memorandum some mention of the way in which it is proposed to defend their bases. I know that the aspect of secrecy is involved here, but possibly a brief reference could be made to defending the bases of the Canberra or advanced T.S.R. 2 aircraft. I am thinking of this particularly with regard to possible attacks, if war comes about—though I hope it will not—from low-flying aircraft. Is this defence to be effected entirely by the aircraft which are listed in the Memorandum—namely, the Swift and the Hunter fighter aircraft?
I think we can be sure that the Russians have, or will have, an aircraft comparable to our T.S.R. 2, or, if not comparable, at least capable of low-level attacks. It can also be assumed, I think, that they are working on a low-altitude air-to-surface delivery system, something which would be similar to the American Wagtail missile. According to Flight, this weapon system is intended to be launched from a supersonic aircraft flying very close to ground. After launching, retrorockets would reduce the speed of the missile, and inertial guidance would steer the missile to its target, again at the lowest possible altitude, and its guidance system would sense obstructions so as to fly either over or around them. At the moment, I understand that the defence of V-bombers against enemy aircraft is mainly by means of our fighters and the Bloodhound Mark I missile. I understand that later we are to rely on our ballistic missile Early Warning Station or on a short-scramble for our bombers, and on a wide dispersal of these bombers. But in view of the difficulty of detecting low flying or hedge-hopping aircraft, surely we must concentrate on the protection of our bases in Germany.
I believe I am right in saying that the Bloodhound Mark II missile may be depressed and fired at a very low angle of elevation, and that it is effective even when it comes up against highly sophisticated forms of jamming. When is it expected that Bloodhound Mark II missiles will be deployed in Germany for area defence of our R.A.F. bases? Could my noble friend be a little more explicit

1319
with regard to the statement in the Memorandum that
"Orders are being placed for Bloodhound Mark II"?
Now with regard to the T.S.R. 2, Mr. Watkinson referred to this aircraft at Weybridge, in Surrey, on October 2, last. He said:
"It is a very important contribution to our front line defence."
He added that it would have a wide range of weapons, including the nuclear deterrent, and that it would carry airborne ballistic missiles, but probably not the Skybolt. Therefore, which missile will it carry?
In view of its low-flying capability, could it carry a weapon system similar to the Wagtail? I trust that Her Majesty's Government are keeping au fait with developments in the United States with regard to this weapon or to a weapon having a similar capability or similar function. I referred in the Defence debate to Blue Steel and Sky-bolt, and I do not propose to say anything to-day, except to ask my noble friend whether he could be a little more specific with regard to the words in the White Paper concerning the handling and maintenance trials of Blue Steel, if the Vulcan II's are now in squadron service.
I should like to turn to something to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred briefly—namely, anti-submarine detection. Last summer I attended an anti-submarine exercise aboard one of Her Majesty's frigates and I flew in a Shackleton of No. 206 Squadron. I should therefore like to make a few comments with regard to paragraph 34 in the Memorandum on this question of anti-submarine detection. Although I flew with a seasoned, well-trained and efficient crew, and their demonstration was a very impressive one, I still could not but gain the impression that the drawback lay in our equipment. It would be wrong if we underestimated this problem. When I attended this N.A.T.O. exercise, there were aircraft, helicopters and warships (and by "warships" I mean frigates and destroyers) taking part, and their co-operated efforts were towards the hunting down of just one submarine. The shortcomings of our equipment became apparent after
1320
the submarine had been contacted, then plotted and then lost, in spite of the search efforts of three warships, two aircraft and two helicopters, all fitted with sonar equipment: the helicopters hovering and dipping their sonar sounding equipment in the sea; the aircraft by means of sonar buoys, and the ships with their static sonar equipment. What struck me was the fact that at the end of the exercise the submarine surfaced very near to where we were.
Another point which I should mention, because I think it is important, is the lack of co-ordination that existed with regard to radio communication between the ships and headquarters at Londonderry, and also between the ships, the aircraft and the helicopters. I think that our failure to remain better in contact with the submarine was partly due to this lack of properly co-ordinated radio communication. I am wondering if a break-through with regard to anti-submarine detection would not be assisted, in what is essentially a marine electronics problem, if a similar effort in research and development were made in anti-submarine detection as is made in the guidance system of missiles. There used to be, and rightly so, a great concentration of electronics on guiding our various forms of missiles. I wonder whether a similar concentration of effort is being made with regard to anti-submarine detection.
I have brought up this point to-day because, although it is a naval matter, it affects the operational efficiency of Coastal Command, who also carry the appropriate electronic equipment for searching for submarines. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply if he can say whether adequate funds and resources are provided for the solution of this problem. To my mind, it is important, because it can be assumed that in future there will be few sightings of submarines by means of radar in view of the deep sea capacity of modern submarines, and the fact that they may remain under the water for a considerable period of time.
I appreciate that in the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Navy Estimates there is a statement to the effect that prominent among the projects in Admiralty research establishments is the long-range detection of fast, deep-diving

1321
submarines. This is a problem, as I have said, which concerns the Navy and the R.A.F. I am wondering whether there would not be grounds for initiating a joint Government-electronics industry committee; and when I say "Government", I mean the Admiralty and the Ministry of Aviation. A committee may not be the right body, but what I am trying to achieve is that there should be appropriate consultation between the interested parties; and certainly the electronics industry, in spite of the need for, secrecy, could contribute to a solution of this problem of anti-submarine detection. It may be that insufficient research and development contracts are being placed outside. From reading the Explanatory Statement accompanying the Navy Estimates gained the impression (I shall be corrected if I am wrong) that most of this electronics research work is done within the naval research establishments. I should have thought that quite a fair amount could have been put out to the electronics industry, though naturally with the appropriate safeguards with regard to secrecy.
Finally, I turn to a quite different subject, affecting Aden and, in particular, the sick quarters at Steamer Point. A Parliamentary delegation visited Aden in September, 1959, and since then I have been pleased to see various references in another place to improvements in accommodation, recreational facilities and schools. There is also in the Memorandum a statement to the effect that work is nearing completion on the hospital, which I presume to be the hospital that is pleasantly situated on the hill at Steamer Point. But since September, 1959, there has been no mention of the sick quarters. We visited those sick quarters, and they were certainly cramped and under-staffed; and by "cramped", I mean that the patients were cramped, and there was insufficient storage space for medicines, bandages and so forth.
Apart from being too small, the sick quarters are also, in my opinion, badly sited: for, among other defects, they are right up against the M.T. yard, where vehicles are tested and repaired, and naturally fumes emanate from the exhausts. The fact that the sick quarters are badly sited was definitely stressed to us at the time.
1322
I should like to make it clear that I am not making any criticism whatsoever of the medical personnel who were responsible for the sick quarters, because the quarters were spotlessly clean, and very well run. The medical officer in charge was young and efficient, and appeared to be hard-working. But, as I say, the siting was bad and the facilities inadequate. In conclusion, I would ask my noble friend whether he can say anything with regard to the present conditions of these sick quarters, and also whether they are fully up to strength with regard to medical officers and orderlies, because they have to deal with a large number of Service personnel and civilians.
5.52 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, my only reason for intervening in this debate is once again to draw attention to the great importance of providing proper protection for our vital sea communications—vital because on them we rely, not only for the 1 million tons of supplies per week which we require, but also so that we may pursue the maritime strategy which is this country's traditional and most successful method of waging war if, unfortunately, we are obliged to do that. Therefore, my remarks will be confined to Coastal Command, and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, who opened this debate with an interesting speech, made some reference to that Command.
In studying, the Explanatory Memorandum, I found it disappointing that it devoted only five paragraphs to this Command. The first of these, paragraph 32, tells us that the Shackleton aircraft have been fitted with new radar, new navigation equipment and improved submarine plotting facilities. They are also to be provided, so the Memorandum says, with improved communications—which I am sure gives some comfort to my noble friend Lord Merrivale—and better means of locating survivors in the sea. All these things may be desirable, and the sooner they are supplied the better, but I should have felt happier if we had been told that these aircraft were being equipped, or were about to be equipped, with the latest weapons for attacking enemy submarines. There is no reference to this important matter, and I am slightly anxious about it.

1323
Many of your Lordships will remember that Coastal Command started the last war armed with bombs which soon proved ineffective against U-boats. Depth charges were not issued to the Command until the Spring of 1940, and it was another twelve months before they were made really suitable for use from aircraft. Despite this initial handicap, shore-based aircraft of the Commonwealth and Allied Air Forces sank no fewer than 245 U-boats, of which a large proportion, of course, fell to Coastal Command. This number is only one fewer than those sunk by surface ships, namely, 246. This, I submit, is an indication of the important part which Coastal Command has to play in the defence of our sea routes. I hope the noble Earl, when he replies to the debate, may give us some information about the offensive weapon with which these Shackleton aircraft are equipped. I had thought of mentioning that possibly the Shackleton aircraft were getting a little long in the tooth, but out of respect for the noble Lord who opened this debate I thought I would not put it quite in that way. But now that he has done so himself, I have no inhibitions about doing so.
In paragraph 44 of the Explanatory Memorandum, we are told that, during the autumn exercise "Fallex" Coastal Command, despite the difficulties of submarine detection, made many successful sightings and practice attacks. This is the only reference in the Memorandum which I can find to Coastal Command's offensive rôle, and it would be nice to be told, if we can, that these practice attacks, if they had been the real thing, would have been delivered with really up-to-date weapons. I can well appreciate the difficulties of submarine detection referred to in paragraph 34 and in the interesting remarks which my noble friend Lord Merrivale has just made. Forty-three years ago, almost to the day, I was first-lieutenant of a submarine which was detailed to carry out some of the first tests with aircraft, which at that time were of a very elementary nature. It was very difficult then for the aircraft to detect us in the submarine, and we in the submarine made it as difficult as possible for them, but I am quite certain that it is even more difficult now, with the advent of Snorkels, nuclear-powered submarines and so forth.
1324
In my view, the only answer to this problem is one of active and continuing research, not only into improved and new scientific devices, but also into their tactical use. In common with my noble friend Lord Merrivale, I hope we can be assured that we continue to maintain our lead in this matter, because we have had a lead in anti-submarine detection devices for a number of years. I agree with my noble friend that we must have sufficient resources made available to the establishments to carry out this all-important research work.
One searches the Memorandum in vain for any information as to the number of aircraft and personnel allocated to Coastal Command or, for that matter, to any other Command. No doubt it is a matter of security. Nevertheless, in preparing my remarks for this debate I thought it would be easier if I knew something of the size of the force we were talking about. Therefore, I did some research to find out the size of Coastal Command at the start and at the finish of the last war. I found that in 1939 Coastal Command comprised 15 squadrons, which I translate, maybe wrongly—and if so, no doubt I shall be corrected—as 180 aircraft or there abouts. At June 1, 1944, Coastal Command mustered 753 aircraft, of which 475 were anti-U-boat and 278 anti-shipping. It is a fact that when the status of duties of Coastal Command were defined before the last war—I think it was in 1937—the function of attacking enemy warships or supply ships was omitted. It was not until the war had been in operation for some time that steps were taken to repair this omission and to provide the necessary aircraft for an organised striking force, which, as I have said, had been built up to 278 aircraft by June, 1944. Therefore, I think it is fair to compare the pre-war number of 180 aircraft directly with the 475 available for anti-U-boat war at June 1, 1944.
Frankly, I was rather surprised at what a small expansion this was in Coastal Command, apart from the striking force, but I suppose that improved types of aircraft and increased efficiency, and so forth, in part accounted for that. I do not know whether the Commander-in-Chief, Coastal Command, in June, 1944, felt he had enough aircraft. If you asked me that question, I should say

1325
that he felt he had not enough aircraft. However, I, of course, do not know, nor do I expect an answer, as to how many aircraft Coastal Command has to-day. The purpose of this brief discussion on numbers is to show that we are not, at the very best or very worst, whichever way you like to put it, discussing a very large force; we are not dicussing thousands of aircraft; we are talking about hundreds of aircraft. A small force like that can be so easily squeezed out when questions of priority arise.
The fact that it is, comparatively speaking, so small may give an impression to some people that it is of no importance at all, whereas the facts are exactly the opposite. Coastal Command is most important and has a vital part to play in our defence. In 1941 Coastal Command was given a very low priority—in fact, I think it would be correct to say no priority at all—in the matter of very long-range aircraft. Your Lordships will not wish me, nor is it relevant to our debate tonight, to pursue this contentious matter now. It has had a good airing in the Press quite lately. The decision to give Coastal Command this low priority for very long-range aircraft was taken at the highest level and was certainly nothing to do with Coastal Command or even the Air Ministry or the Admiralty. However, it is fair to say that the decision having been taken, Coastal Command was badly handicapped in, if not prevented from, playing its proper part in the battle of the Atlantic during 1941 and 1942 when things there were very serious indeed. I mention this bit of history only to emphasise the importance of those responsible for giving Coastal Command its rightful priority in these matters of aircraft equipment and research.
Earlier in my speech I mentioned that by June, 1944, Coastal Command had some 278 aircraft for operations against shipping of all sorts; in other words, strike aircraft. They were armed with rockets and canons, torpedoes and bombs. I can find in the Explanatory Memorandum no mention of this particular offensive function of Coastal Command. As I said earlier in my speech, it was omitted from
Coastal Command's status and duties drawn up in 1937, and was brought in during the war. There is no mention of it now in
1326
the Explanatory Memorandum, and I do not think there are any aircraft allocated to Coastal Command for this particular duty. The only aircraft mentioned in the four paragraphs relating to Coastal Command are Shackletons and helicopters, neither, so far as I know, particularly suitable for the offensive, except against enemy submarines. I merely ask, has its strike rôle been taken away from Coastal Command and handed to Fighter Command or Bomber Command or the Navy?
Finally the Memorandum says:
"Strategic and tactical mobility is of prime importance to our overseas defence policy."
I could not agree more. This is a matter to which I referred at considerable length when I spoke in the defence debate, and of course it applies to Coastal Command as much as to other Commands in the Royal Air Force and to the other Services. It is in this context of mobility, coupled with what I described in the defence debate as the diminished base factor, that I wonder whether it is entirely wise to equip Coastal Command completely with land-based aircraft. I wonder whether perhaps the time has come to consider the reintroduction of flying boats, at any rate for one or two squadrons. At the outset of the war in 1939, Coastal Command had, I think, two squadrons of Sunderland flying boats. Suitable land bases may not be readily available, but flying boats can operate from marine bases, which in many cases can be more readily secured and more easily made ready for instant operation. Coastal Command has a very important part to play in our defences, in particular to co-operate with the Royal Navy and the navies of our Allies in support of our economy and in the maritime strategy which I think we should employ.
6.7 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships welcome the opportunity the noble Lord has given us again this afternoon to debate the Royal Air Force. As usual, he has spoken persuasively, with moderation and with a deep knowledge. I think that on the whole, too, we have had a constructive debate, and we have also had a pretty brief one. I shall certainly not wish to prolong it unduly, but if I am to answer a majority of the points which have been

1327
put to me I may have to prolong it a little longer than your Lordships, and certainly I, would wish.
First, I should like, as briefly as I can, to clear away the underbrush to do with two tangential but important points that have been made in the course of your Lordships' debate this afternoon. The first is space research. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knows, on this particular subject I am rather in the position of poacher turned gamekeeper. I was certainly a keen poacher, and I should like to be a keen gamekeeper. The only trouble is that this is not my particular covert. But perhaps I may just say this. So far as the proposed Blue Streak Organisation and the projected European Space Research Organisation is concerned, they will be dealing entirely with the civil aspects of space research, and so far as I know, the Royal Air Force will not, therefore, be directly concerned with that. But there is, of course, already Air Ministry participation in one way with the British space research programme, in that the Steering Group on space research, under my noble friend the Minister for Science, has the benefit of the attendance of the Scientific Adviser to the Air Minister. The Director General of the Meteorological Office also attends the meetings of that Group.
There are also a number of ways in which air establishments contribute directly to our space research programme. The Meteorological Office are conducting high atmosphere research using sounding rockets, and while British plans do not contemplate any attempt at manned space flight, the Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine, which conducts very useful pioneer work in physiological stresses in high-speed flying, is exploring the possibilities of designing biological experiments which might be flown in satellites. I think that is enough on space research for your Lordships this afternoon, more especially as I note that my noble friend Lord Bessborough has a Motion down, with no date named, on this whole question of space research.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye made a strong plea for greater integration of the Services. I am sure that on that matter your Lordships will not be expecting obiter dicta
1328
from me. In fact, this seems to me to be a subject more fitting for a Defence debate. But I am equally certain that my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers will take careful note of what has been said in this regard. Perhaps I may just add, that of course there is a deal of co-ordination or integration (call it what you will) already obtaining. I can think, offhand, of a couple of examples. The first is the unified Command in Aden, where there is already a degree of integration between the works branches of the Services. The second is on the hospital side. The Army provides single service hospital facilities in Gibraltar and Singapore which are used by the other Services. The Royal Air Force does the same in Aden, and I understand that the Navy is planning to do the same in Malta. However that may be, perhaps this process should be carried a great deal further.
I must say that I personally was impressed by the argument advanced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder. I just wonder what would be the effect on recruitment of going the whole hog. Should we attract recruits to a grey unified Service in the same way as we do, or hope to do, into three Services with their distinct and special traditions? I will not attempt to answer that question, because I do not think that it is for me to pronounce one way or another on this vast but highly important subject.
Turning more directly to the subject of the debate this evening, I should like to come straight to the "nettle" of the heavy deterrent and Bomber Command. The responsibility for providing the British heavy deterrent force, which is the heart of our defence policy, rests squarely on the Royal Air Force. I do not propose to philosophise about the deterrent, since we have covered that ground pretty fully in recent debates—
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Earl tell the House what the light deterrent is? He spoke of the "heavy deterrent". That is a new phrase.
EARL JELLICOE: I do not think it is a particularly new phrase. The spectrum of deterrents runs right through from conventional forces up to the heavy strike force. I was dealing with the heavy strike force; but I think it is

1329
generally accepted that deterrence exists at every level. I was wishing merely to direct your Lordships' attention to Bomber Command.
I should like to sketch as clear a picture as I can, within the limits of security, of the effectiveness of our deterrent forces. We believe that we possess, and shall continue for the rest of this decade to possess, a nuclear striking force capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on any potential aggressor. This implies, of course, the capacity effectively to penetrate the enemy's defences. We believe that Bomber Command, with the Thors and with the existing V-bombers, at present has that capacity. Nevertheless, we recognise that the development of close defence systems for vital areas, and wider area defence systems, will steadily reduce the effectiveness of a force like the present V-bombers, armed only with free-falling bombs. That is recognised.
How, in these circumstances, will Bomber Command retain its power of penetration? First, of course, by the introduction of more modern aircraft, capable of flying higher and further, and with a greater capacity to confuse and deceive the enemy's defence systems. The re-equipment, indeed the expansion, of Bomber Command with improved versions of the V-bomber is proceeding steadily. Secondly, as your Lordships know, we plan to introduce two successive weapons. Next year we plan to introduce the Blue Steel stand-off missile. Its speed, altitude and small radar reflecting area will make it an extremely difficult weapon to guard against. V-Bombers equipped with it will be able to attack their targets without themselves penetrating the most heavily defended areas.
Then, later, by the middle of the decade, we shall have the American Skybolt, an air launched ballistic missile which will enable us, or the V-Bombers, to reach major targets without having to penetrate enemy air defences at all. There have been attempts—mainly, I must admit, in another place—to cast doubt on this missile: whether it will work, whether the Americans will, in fact, continue its development, and whether they will wish to attach unacceptable "strings" to it. My Lords, I believe these doubts to be quite with-
1330
out foundation. You will have noticed that President Kennedy recently proposed to Congress that an additional 50 million dollars be spent on the Skybolt programme in the next fiscal year. This, I suggest, is a pretty good indication of the priority and importance which the United States Administration attach to this project.
But of course it is no good having a force which, theoretically, could reach the target if in practice it were caught on the ground. Obviously we must ensure that our deterrent force cannot be destroyed on the ground. At present, whilst the main threat to this country remains the manned bomber, we should get more than sufficient warning of the approach of enemy bomber forces to get our bombers into the air before their bases can be attacked. The position will, of course, change when the threat from bombers gives way to the threat from missiles and when the warning of attack may be reduced, in the worst case, to a matter of a few minutes. We are preparing to meet this situation.
We have arranged to disperse our bombers from their main bases in emergency and these arrangements are already regularly exercised. We have also concentrated on reducing the reaction time of the bombers—the time needed to get them into the air once the critical warning is received. With constant practice, scrambling times of less than one and a half minutes are already being achieved. Finally, we are now developing in the form of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station at Fyling-dales the means of ensuring the maintenance of radar warning against the missile threat.
LORD SHACKLETON: Would the noble Lord answer a question, which I know has been asked before—namely, at what point does the scrambling time, the egg-timing period, operate? In other words, where are the aircrew or the aircraft when they start timing the one and a half minutes?
EARL JELLICOE: In the aircraft. In short, therefore, we believe that through this decade we shall retain in the V-bombers, with their progressively improving adjuncts, a nuclear deterrent force of very great power indeed. Having said that, I should like to say how glad I was to hear what the noble and gallant

1331
Lord, Lord Tedder had to say in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked about the next generation. I can only repeat that we believe that for this decade our present generation of weapons and missiles and their vehicles will suffice. However, a very close study of what our contribution should be in the next phase is now being made; but further than that I cannot go. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Merrivale—I do not know whether this is the right moment to refer to this matter—was kind enough to give me notice about Wagtail. I am afraid I have not been able to pursue his little bird to its nest, but I shall try to put salt on its tail and will let him know the results.
Next, the air defence of this country. Your Lordships already know that it is no longer realistic to attempt to provide a secure defence for this country as a whole. The emphasis to-day is rather on the defence of the deterrent bases. As long as the main threat to this country is from manned bombers, we shall continue to need fighters, and the Bloodhound missile squadrons, to defend the deterrent bases. Our fighters, Javelins and Lightnings, are equipped at present with Fire-Streak missiles and will provide flexible area defence extending well out from our coasts. The Bloodhound 1, whose deployment will be completed this year, will provide the close defence of the main deterrent bases. Together we believe that these two ranges of weapons would take a very heavy toll indeed of any attack.
That is the position to-day. When we move fully into the missile era we shall, of course, continue to need fighters to deal with aircraft intruding into our air space for reconnaissance or other purposes or attempting to jam our radar systems. For several years to come this rôle will be filled by the Lightning. Orders have now been placed for later versions of this aircraft which will have an even better performance than the Mark I which is now in service, and an air-to-air guided weapon capable of a much wider angle of attack
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but has the noble Earl left the point of Blood-
1332
hound? Is he going to refer to Blood-hound Mark 2 or not?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will come back to Bloodhound again. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I think suggested, in talking about the Lightning, that there were severe anatomical restrictions on the pilots who can fly this aircraft—that pilots with a thigh length, I think, of greater than 17 inches would be unable to get out of the aircraft in an emergency. There is, of course, always a problem, I understand, about space in a fighter, particularly one carrying as much equipment as does the Lightning, but I am glad that I am able to reassure the noble Lord about this, and also to reassure myself, since I have a thigh length (I measured it just now) of 18 inches. The restriction on Lightning pilots applies to officers over 6 feet 1 inch tall and with thighs longer than 25 inches. In fact, I think this would mean the rejection of only about 1 or 2 per cent. of the pilots who would otherwise fly this machine. I myself was at Wattisham on Monday and can vouch for the fact that Lightning Squadrons do not have to compete with the fairground for midgets.
There is one further matter on the question of air defence. We shall, of course, still need a radar warning and control system to deal with aircraft, and we are in fact planning to introduce a new system which will have not only a higher performance but also a much greater degree of automation. Here, in answering a point touched on by Lord Shackleton, I should just like to mention that the new system will have a dual rôle in peace time: air traffic control.
I should now like to turn to the rôle of the R.A.F. overseas. I have recently had the chance, which I greatly valued, of seeing something of our Forces in the Middle East and the Far East. I should have liked to convey to your Lordships the rather heartening impression I brought back of the build-up of our air-power in those theatres—and the same applies to Cyprus—of modernisation and of substantial re-equipment, but I do not think there is really time. Be that as it may, it is quite clear that the
problems which the Royal Air Force must surmount will become steadily more exacting as more modern and sophisti-

1333
cated aircraft and equipment are spread more widely about the world.
Three particularly important developments are planned in this field to develop the Royal Air Force's capability in Europe and elsewhere abroad. First, there will be the introduction of the T.S.R.2 which is now in the development stage; and, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I would say that it should come into service in the middle of this decade. I should just like to say about this aircraft, although I think it is probably unwise to talk too much about an aircraft still not yet flying, that the Air Staff believe it is difficult to overstress the significance of this revolutionary aircraft, and it will be a key feature in our future plans, both in Europe and further afield.
Secondly—and I am still dealing with our Forces overseas—there will be the use of the United Kingdom Fighter Force for overseas reinforcement on a very much wider scale than has been practised so far. And, thirdly, we shall be introducing the Bloodhound Mark 2 surface-to-air guided-missile system which is being specifically designed for transport by air, so that it can be moved readily at need to reinforce the close air defences of any of our important overseas bases that may be threatened. My noble friend asked me a number of questions about the deployment of the Bloodhound Mark 2. I do not think I can give him a great deal of satisfaction about that, but I think I can say to him that at the moment its deployment is envisaged in the Near East and Far East theatres.
In reading back through your Lordships' debates, have been struck by a thread that runs through them: persistent pressure for a bigger and better Transport Command. I feel that that pressure was justified, not least because I have pushed at this particular door myself. I was not, therefore, surprised at the attention which your Lordships have paid to Transport Command in the debate this afternoon. Can we, in fact, be satisfied with our build-up here? The key to the successful fulfilment of our overseas commitments lies very largely in the strategic transport force. The existing fleet of 10 Comet 2s and 23 13ritannias is already the equivalent of a pretty large airline, as anyone who has seen the airfield at Lyneham, full of
1334
Comets and Britannias, would appreciate. We have now ordered 5 Comet 4.Cs and we expect to take delivery of them all next year. To supplement this fleet we have, as your Lordships well know, placed an order for 10 Belfast freighters.
Some noble Lords have suggested that since the Belfast will not come into service until 1964—that is the planned date and remains the planned date—there will be a considerable period during which we shall have no strategic freight capacity. But it must be remembered that, for the most part, we rely for the equipment of our Forces overseas on stockpiles built up in the various theatres. Thus in an emergency we need move equipment in these stockpiles over only shorter ranges, and for this purpose our tactical freighters, the Beverley and the Argosy, are admirable. Over the next few years, however, we shall have coming into service an increasing number of equipments which will be extremely costly and therefore uneconomic to stockpile. I refer, in particular, to the various guided-missile weapons which are being introduced, like the Bloodhound Mark 2. For these costly items overseas stockpiling is impracticable, and that is one of the principal reasons why we shall need the Belfast. Meanwhile, it is not really correct to suggest that we have no strategic freight capacity at all. The R.A.F. Britannia, with its specially strengthened floor, can carry a pretty useful load: and, except over the longest ranges the Beverley can carry even bulkier cargoes.
The strategic airlift is, of course, under the centralised control of Transport Command. The medium-range element of the force, is, however, distributed in the various theatres, and its primary task is to move troops and equipment from the main overseas bases to the forward bases. At present it consists of Beverleys and Hastings, but it is about to be increased by the 56 Argosies which have been ordered, and of which the first should be in service by the end of this year. These Argosies will be a very substantial addition indeed to the theatre airlift.
The third element of the Transport Force consists of the short-range lift for stores and men in support of the Army in the forward areas. As a glance at the chart at the back of the Memorandum

1335
will show, there is going to be a major expansion—it has already started—of the helicopter forces supporting the Army in the field. The twin-rotor Belvedere is coming into service, and deliveries of the gas-turbine-engined Whirlwind will soon begin. Later, these will be joined by the Wessex, with its much improved performance.
Thus, this year we are beginning to reap the benefits of the increasing capacity of the Transport Force. The series of exercises which have been planned in
conjunction with the Army for this year is the largest ever to take place in peace time. I should like to snatch one example, which is the exercise now in progress. It is a joint Army-R.A.F. exercise called "Fabulist". Strategically, this exercise has entailed the airlift of the best part of a brigade group from here to Cyprus and back, while tactically it has involved the biggest paratroop drop this country has mounted since the Rhine crossing.
I asked earlier whether we could be satisfied with the build-up of Transport Command. I hope I have shown that a very substantial advance has been made during the past year, and that the momentum can be maintained. But the frank answer to my question is, No. We certainly anticipate that the demands on our transport forces will grow larger and more stringent. We shall need, and we plan to have, greater capacity, greater range and greater flexibility. For this reason we are particularly keen to see a further move towards the vertical and short take-off transport aircraft. In the theatre transport rôle, we are therefore naturally studying the problem of a replacement for the well-tried Hastings and Beverleys; and good take-off and landing performance is one of the main things we are looking for. We axe also studying the further re-equipment of the short-range tactical element of the force with short and vertical take-off aircraft.
Finally, my Lords, and I hope not under-rating its importance, I should like to say something about Coastal Command, with which a number of previous speakers have dealt at some length in this debate—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and my noble friends Lord Merrivale and Lord Ampthill. Even in this nuclear age, we cannot begin to overlook the importance of sea com-
1336
munications to these islands and to the N.A.T.O. Alliance. These vital lifelines must be safeguarded, and part of the responsibility for this falls to Coastal Command in co-operation with the Royal Navy. Aircraft of Coastal Command work and train in very close cooperation with the Navy to fit themselves for the difficult and arduous task of detecting, fixing and destroying enemy submarines. This involves very long patrols, often in bad weather, and a high degree of teamwork. In their exercises, Coastal Command frequently work closely with the maritime air forces of our N.A.T.O. Allies, and have given a good account of themselves in their anti-submarine rôle.
I fear that I may not answer all the questions put to me on this, but I have an eye to the clock. However. I should like to say a word about the workhorse of Coastal Command, the Shackle-ton, and the question posed by a number of noble Lords about a Shackleton replacement. There is an extensive modernisation programme in progress, virtually completed, for the Shackleton. We are satisfied that these aircraft, with their improved equipment, should be fully adequate in the maritime rôle for several years to come. The Shackleton embodies all the essential qualities of a maritime aircraft—a long range and an ability to fly at low speeds and at low altitudes—and is capable of carrying all the weapons which exist now or which will be coming into service in the near future. I think I can give my noble friend Lord Ampthill the assurance he asked for on that point. However, the Air Staff are already working out ideas about its ultimate replacement. I am afraid that I cannot say more than that at present: but it is, however, recognised as a problem of considerable importance.
So much, my Lords, for material. But, however good the material, the R.A.F.. of course, is only as good as the officers and men who man tit. I should like briefly to review the present position and, in the light of some of the questions posed by speakers in this debate, to discuss the problems which confront us. First, there is the problem of recruitment, which has received, quite rightly, fairly concentrated attention in this debate. Recruitment to Cranwell (which will, of course, provide most of the

1337
officers who will go right to the top of the Air Force) is satisfactory. That is the first point. But to fly most of its aircraft, the R.A.F. depends on recruits under the direct entry scheme, and here, frankly, things are not going as well as my right honourable friend would like. The problem is not one of an absolute shortage of applicants it is a shortage of applicants of the right calibre. On one point of principle, however, I think the Air Force is absolutely right: that is, that they feel there can be no question of lowering standards in order to keep numbers up. That said, however, I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and other noble Lords who have referred to this aspect of the matter, that everything possible is being done to improve and refine the R.A.F.'s selection machinery, and that the effectiveness and flexibility of that machinery will be kept under very close review.
In addition, I am sure your Lordships will agree that everything possible has been done to make the conditions of direct entry for air crews attractive and varied. Here I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the bouquet which he bestowed on the Government for the prompt way in which they have carried out the recommendations of the Grigg Committee's Report. In view of this, I cannot think that questions of cash or career prospects are any real bar to recruitment, and I should like to say how entirely I agree with and endorse what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye had to say about that. A tangential point here, I think, is the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he referred to the possibilities of erosion through a fall in the value of our money. On that, I should just like to draw his attention to the fact that there is, of course, provision for automatic review of Service pay every two years.
Why, therefore, are we not getting all the officers we need? This is a question to which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is constantly giving attention. One of the main factors, apart from the demand in all walks of life for young men of enterprise, seems to be the belief that flying in the Royal Air Force is coming to an
1338
end. It is a point on which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye laid a great deal of stress. My Lords, nothing could be further from the truth. As my right honourable friend said in the debate on the Air Estimates in another place recently—and I am paraphrasing his words—the Air Force will need at least as many pilots in 1971 as it does to-day, and this will probably be the case in 1981 as well. Of course, equipment is getting more complicated and sophisticated; of course, there is bound to be an increasing measure of automatic techniques. But, quite apart from the more routine but still exacting tasks of flying the modern transport aircraft, there are few tasks more demanding than the control of weapon systems such as those of the V-Bomber, the Lightning and the TSR.2. In short, we believe that the Air Force will continue to offer masses of opportunity for flying and for the exercise of all the skills which go with flying modern aircraft.
These opportunities, my Lords, are now coming earlier to the young men who join the R.A.F. as pilots. Noble Lords may have seen the report in The Times the other day of the scheme on which the Air Ministry embarked some three years ago under which really outstanding young pilots are able to join the V force as soon as they earn their "wings". After three years' service with the Force, they are able to graduate as the first pilot and captain of a V-bomber. The first officer to succeed under the new scheme is a flying officer aged 23. His example should encourage all young men who are keen to fly and who are interested in a career in the Royal Air Force.
What success has been met with in our attempts to deal with this important shortage? I think it is a little reassuring to find that in recent months there has been a sharp increase in the interest shown in careers as general duties officers. In the first quarter of this year, the number of inquiries about aircrew careers has more than doubled. It is too early yet to say whether this welcome revival of interest would in fact give the Air Force the extra aircrews it so badly needs, but there is at least ground for a certain measure of optimism.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Tedder, referred to the university air

1339
squadrons in this general connection. As your Lordships will be aware, the future of the squadrons is to be reviewed later this year. In these circumstances it is hard for me to make any comment, but I can say that the wisdom and experience which the noble Lord has on these matters will mean that very careful note will be taken of his remarks in this debate this afternoon.
As regards airmen, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that recruitment in general is going well, and that there is every prospect that we shall reach the target' for 1963 of 135,000 adult males in the Service. There are certain areas of difficulty, but we hope that they too can be overcome. I was glad that the nob1,2 Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to the Women's Royal Air Force. The R.A.F. is very fortunate in having this important and efficient sister Service working as its partner, and I am glad to be able to say that officer recruitment to the W.R.A.F. continues to improve. I think the number accepted for officer training in the first quarter of 1961 was 39, compared with 7 in the first quarter of last year; and the same goes for airwomen, 536 compared with 389. I think that those figures are broadly satisfactory.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also referred to the rôle of the R.A.F. Regiment. I do not wish to detain your Lordships too long this evening, so I will say merely that I shall be happy, if necessary, to write to the noble Lord about the rôle of the R.A.F. Regiment. But I can give him straight away categorical assurance that there is no intention of using the R.A.F. Regiment as mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. There is no intention of that kind at all. Personally, I am very glad, because I once had the honour to command a squadron of the R.A.F. Regiment in Greece; and very good I found them, too.
Finally, the question of work study to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also referred. On that, I would just make three brief comments. First, there are now more than 200 officers and men trained in work study techniques, employed full-time on work study in R.A.F. Commands. The total Service manpower savings attributable to this last year were 300, so that on my reckon-
1340
ing there is a net gain of 100. Secondly, the work study of the arrangements for refuelling and rearming Javelin aircraft with Firestreak resulted in a saving of 42 men per squadron. Finally, work study has proved extremely useful in the planning stages of new projects, such as, for example, the Transport Command base at Lyneham. It is a matter to which the R.A.F. rightly give a great deal of attention, and I can also say, without going into detail, that I understand there is some delegation of financial powers, in this and other respects, to Commands.
The conditions in which men and their families work and live are no less important, and we have not lost sight of this fact. For example, over one-third of the f18 million provided in the Estimates for new major works services at home is to be devoted to building new married quarters and other accommodation. This will enable the Air Force to double the rate at which it has been completing married quarters, and to reach a figure of some 2,000 quarters a year—which is, in fact the target it has been aiming at for some time now. Nor are single men being forgotten. During the last year, eighteen new barrack blocks in this country have been completed, and a further eight have been modernised. They are on the basis, I think, of four men to a room, which is a far cry from the barrack rooms of Aircraftman Shaw's day. Work is on hand, I might mention, on a further 60 blocks. There is, in fact, a very major programme of accommodation building in hand.
Special attention is being paid—and I feel rightly so—to the improvement of accommodation and amenities abroad. This year, the R.A.F. plan to spend some £3½ million on domestic accommodation and facilities for recreation abroad in Gibraltar, El Adem, Cyprus, Singapore, and, of course, Aden. One of the biggest tasks is the improvement of conditions in Aden and the Persian Gulf, where there has been so large an increase in strength in recent years. My Lords, I could give you any number of statistics about the building programme in what has undoubtedly been a trouble spot in this respect, Aden. I could blind you with figures about new barrack blocks and married quarters, schools, swimming pools, N.A.A.F.I.'s, and the rest of it. They are, indeed, pretty impressive.

1341
But having recently had the chance of visiting Aden, I think you might prefer it if l were to give you, very briefly, the general impression which I formed there.
Having listened with some disquiet to your Lordships' debates about conditions there, I naturally asked to be shown as much as possible in a very short space of time of the conditions in which the Services live in Aden. I was, in fact, shown a very great deal of both the good and the not so good. Admittedly, there are some Service families still living in conditions which I personally should prefer Service families not to be living in, but they are now becoming a very small minority indeed. My general impression was that by the end of this year the Service housing problem in Aden, for which the R.A.F. is, for the most part, responsible, should be "licked". I felt that it had been tackled with, I must say, real drive and determination, and, indeed, imagination.
I personally was greatly struck by the care and attention paid to the planning
and design of the new married accommodation there. My own impression was that the great residual problem in Aden was that of amenities—the task of making life for the Servicemen there as attractive and varied as possible. This will take longer to deal with. Nevertheless, I felt that here too a great deal of progress had been made, both for the Servicemen and their families. Seeing, of course, in these matters is believing. Having seen and been shown, I must say I believe, at least in this particular case. While on Aden, may I just mention that I think I can give some satisfaction to my noble friend Lord Merrivale in that a new sick bay is being built on a pleasant site overlooking Sapper Bay. It will be completed by the end of this year, and will cost nearly £50,000.
My Lords, I fear that I have detained you for too long. May I, in conclusion, just say this? Unlike the noble Lord who moved this Motion, I have had no direct experience of service in the Royal Air Force. Yet I am of the generation which came of age at the start of the last war. I learned in those seven years that the Royal Air Force met, and more than met, the calls made upon it by the nation. Now, lately, I have had the
1342
chance—indeed the honour—of seeing something of the Air Force of to-day, at some of its home stations here and also overseas—in North Africa, Aden, remote Gan, Singapore and in Malaya. What has struck me most of all—and I say this with absolute sincerity—has been the spirit of the officers and airmen in the Air Force of to-day: their morale, their obvious efficiency; above all, a steadiness and firmness of purpose. Judging by that spirit, I have no doubt that the Royal Air Force of 1961, like that of 20 years ago, will meet, and more than meet, the calls made upon it by the nation.
6.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is no fault of the airmen that this debate is ending at a late hour, hut, with more Business to come, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than another minute or two. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not say more in respect of the interesting speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Merrivale and Lord Ampthill. I may add that I listened with the deepest suspicion to the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, as a sailor intervening in this debate, but everything he said was 100 per cent. historically correct and the lessons he drew are absolutely valid today. It is true that at the beginning of the last war Coastal Command was equipped with Ansons with two 100-1b. anti-submarine bombs, and at the end of the war Coastal Command was equipped with aircraft that were carrying loads 8, 10 or even 15 times greater than that. The same thing applied also to the strike rôle which was assigned to Bomber Command before the war. By the end of the war, there was developed the specialised force that was necessary for strikes at sea. This is probably because in peace time we always lose the lessons of the last war and fall back into forms of organisation that are not really suitable.
I find it painful and uncomfortable to disagree with an ex-Chief of Air Staff, who furthermore is a Chancellor of a University, on the question of a unified service. The noble and gallant Lord said 'that this was not a matter of logic, but himself proceeded to demolish the case for a unified Service on logical grounds. It is not just a question of logic but of

1343
experience; not only of unified chaplains, but of getting over the inter-Service difficulty which leads to fragmentation of responsibilities and then to certain minor priorities being pushed by the Services at the expense of important ones, which are essentially hybrid between the Services. I am sure that we shall come to it sometime. I would have begun at the top instead of the bottom, and I suppose that a Chief of Air Staff could wear an Admiral-of-the-Fleet's uniform, if necessary.
I will not pursue the matter, except to say that I hope the noble Earl is not too optimistic about Skybolt. The Canadians depended on the Americans for Boemark and scrapped their fighters, and now they have lost an industry as well as a fighter defence. We are deeply suspicious, and I am sure that many people are, about the successful attainment of this apparently smoothly planned continuing development of the deterrent. It may come off, but I should not be in the least surprised, regretfully, to see it disappear somewhere into thin air.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for one thing. He gave us some information about the 1½ minute scramble with his crew in an aircraft. This information was
rigorously refused in the House of Commons by the Secretary of State for Air, on
security grounds. He said that a potential enemy Staff would love to have this information. I think the reason why we have got it is because the Secretary of State for Air did not know the answer and the noble Earl did. I would congratulate him on that and on his speech, and ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL
6.56 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, 1961. This is a Bill that has been received from another place, where it was introduced by a Private Member and, after
1344
minor amendments, received the Government's support. I do not intend to delay your Lordships unduly, but I welcome the opportunity of explaining the content and purpose of this Bill.
It extends somewhat overdue facilities to co-operative organisations, both consumer and agricultural, and, from a national standpoint, I believe it has the virtue of encouraging saving and investment. The Bill seeks, first, to raise the maximum individual holdings of members in societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, from the present figure of £500 to £1,000. Secondly, it enables certain agricultural, horticultural and forestry societies to make advances of money to their members, without security, for agricultural purposes. The consumer societies welcome the increase in the maximum individual shareholding but do not seek power to loan money without security. This is a facility solely for the benefit of agricultural societies. I would emphasise that these amendments are permissive in character.
Clause 1 gives power to a committee of a co-operative society to pass a resolution, not later than eighteen months after the Act is passed, that would permit members to increase their individual shareholding from the present maximum of £500 to £1,000. Although a simple resolution can give effect to this provision, Clause 1 (6) states that when next the rules are amended, such change must be the subject of an appropriate amendment. This facility is introduced as a matter of convenience for societies who may not wish, for a variety of reasons, to amend their rules for that particular purpose only.
Clause 2 (1) enables societies consisting mainly of members engaged in agriculture, forestry or horticultural production, or organisations of such producers, to make advances of money to their members, but only if this is the principal object of such societies, and the power to loan money in those circumstances must be contained in the rules and objects of these societies. I may explain the reasons for the difference in treatment under these two clauses. In the first place, the decision to increase the maximum shareholding can be achieved by simple resolution whereas the right to make advances must be contained in the rules. In the first case, it is obviously not open to abuse, because the

1345
decision to increase individual shareholding is a purely individual decision, but in the second case the advancing of monies without security to members is the concern of all the members; and, naturally, the members must have the right to be aware of the powers vested in their committee.
To turn to the arguments in support of Clause 1, I would point out that the present maximum limit is £500, which was established in 1952 in an amending Bill. Up to that point it had been £200 since 1862 and the original Bill of 1852 established it at £100. I am sure your Lordships will be appreciative of the necessity for keeping pace with the value of money. I have in my possession ample statistics which would give an indication of the tremendous depreciation of the value of money since those days, but I am sure your Lordships will need no convincing, when one compares to-day's money values with those of the dates I am mentioning, that the present suggestion of £1,000 is more than justified.
Let us examine it, also, from another angle. The increase in the maximum individual shareholding can be justified from the increased necessity that arises from the greatly increased volume of trade. The co-operative trade in 1914 was £88 million a year; to-day it is over £1,000 million a year. True, there have been changes in prices over that period. But the membership has increased from 3 million to 13 million. Obviously this great expansion of trade demands more capital; but although trade has increased, the rate of capital growth has slowed down. Between 1852 and 1959 the trade increase was 42 per cent., and the capital increase over that same period was 11 per cent. I am sure your Lordships will be appreciative of the fact that the development of technical processes, not only in manufacturing but in the distributive trades, demands the employment of more capital; and the encouragement of more efficient methods in that direction is, naturally, in the national interest.
I might, in passing, make reference to the development of self-service, which was pioneered by co-operative societies and has made a tremendous reduction in the costs of distribution; and I am happy to say that many of the non-
1346
co-operatives stores are adopting the same practice.
LORD AMWELL: And still the prices go up.
LORD PEDDIE: It is not my intention to attempt to claim that the slowing down of capital accumulation is due entirely to the present limitation. We must recognise the fundamental difference that exists between co-operative organisations and joint stock companie.4 In the case of co-operatives, their shares have a fixed interest. A co-operative organisation registered under the Industrial and Provident Society's Act has as its principal object the maximising of benefit to the consumer by distributing the surplus to the members, instead of, as in the case of joint stock companies, to the shareholders. I would also point out that co-operative shares suffer a handicap compared with deposits in the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks, where the first £15 of interest is exempt from income tax. That, we feel, is a serious handicap. I would also emphasise, as justification for this Bill, that the inflow of necessary share capital comes solely from members and, in consequence, has the effect of increasing overall national savings.
The agricultural co-operatives have a great interest in this Bill, although their case has rather a different emphasis from the one I have given. I am sure your Lordships will be interested to observe the tremendous development of agricultural co-operatives over the past years. The turnover of agricultural cooperative societies in England increased! from £25 million in 1946 to £l44¼ million in 1959; and the share capital of those societies is only £10 million (it is exceedingly small; I might even say dangerously small) in relation to their turnover. A recent survey conducted by independent economists showed that agricultural societies needed new capital at the rate of £21 million a year at the present rate of growth. This can be found only by adding to share capital and reserves, loan capital or increased overdrafts. Loan capital is on a short-term basis and not the most suitable way of financing agricultural co-operatives. Overdrafts and trade credits at the moment are responsible for not less

1347
than one-third of the total capital employed by agricultural co-operatives, and agricultural co-operative societies, whilst appreciative of the help in that direction, are naturally anxious to cut down on that high percentage. Therefore, this indicates the need to increase the maximum individual shareholding to the modest figure of £1,000.
I am informed that the average Requirement Society needs £250 capital for each £1,000 annual through-put. The Agricultural Central Co-operative Association (of which I am sure your Lordships will be aware) in a survey of 1957 showed that approximately £70,000 was lost during that year because the limit of £500 would have been exceeded. To quote the experience of one individual society, this society obtained just over £61,000 share capital that year, but had to reject an additional £9,526 because of the operation of this maximum shareholding of £500. I might also point out that the present limit imposes a particular burden when large farmers are in membership, and marketing societies, which require expensive equipment, have relatively small membership.
I turn now to Clause 2. The purpose of Clause 2 is to effect a modification of the restriction in the original Act. Because of this restriction a federal agricultural organisation which was formed for the purpose of providing credit or loan facilities for farmers has had to be registered under the Companies Act as a private limited company, where there is a limit of 50 members. A public company could not be formed, because the farmers are all too appreciative of the danger that farmers and societies may lose control when that type of organisation is employed. I might say that the Government have made provision in the Horticulture Act, 1960, for financial assistance to stimulate co-operative organisations in that industry. It would be regrettable if such developments were frustrated by the present legal handicap in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.
This Bill is a simple Bill. I believe that its principles are acceptable to the Government, and I make my plea in support of this Bill, not only because it will be of considerable value to co-
1348
operative organisations, but also because I believe that it will stimulate the recruitment and more effective employment of capital; and that, without question, is in the national interest. In consequence of that, I am confident that the House will accept the Second Reading, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Peddie.)
7.12 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, without detaining your Lordships for more than two or three minutes, I should like to associate myself with all my noble friend Lord Peddie has said in favour of this Bill. It is a very small Bill, but I do not think its importance can be over-exaggerated, particularly where agricultural and horticultural cooperation is thought of. Indeed, I cannot imagine any more fruitful activity in the countryside than that of agricultural and horticultural societies.
The case has been made out for the Bill. It received a universal welcome in another place, and it would be folly on my part to detain your Lordships for more than a moment in associating myself with what has already been said. It has been demonstrated that the rapid growth of these agricultural and horticultural co-operative societies has left them more or less without the share capital necessary under the 1952 Act if they are going to grow, develop and expand, as we should all like to see them do. Therefore, Clause 1 is both urgent and necessary if the societies are to be helped and encouraged to get on with this particular part of their duties. From the earliest part of my association with the agricultural and horticultural industry I have been a strong advocate both of agricultural marketing schemes and of agricultural co-operation in any form. I am delighted to see that the present Government are not only displaying much more interest than ever before but are actually giving practical encouragement to this form of activity—something they have rarely done in the past. Indeed, in looking back for a moment it is a welcome change from their attitude towards marketing in 1931, when they voted against the Agricultural Marketing Bill. We congratulate the Government on their educational processes and we hope they will continue.

1349
Noble Lords will appreciate, as my noble friend has said, that there is nothing compulsory about this small measure. No society, unless they wish, need pass the appropriate resolution. They may do so if they wish, or they need not. No member of the society is obliged to increase his share capital, even if the resolution is passed. All that Parliament is asked is to allow these agricultural and horticultural societies, and their members, to develop and extend their legitimate activities with their own funds.
Clause 2 has been mentioned by my noble friend, but some people may have doubts in their minds about making loans without what is called security. I think your Lordships will agree that we can rely upon the discretion of these societies when dealing with their own members. They will know, perhaps better than the bank managers or other credit agencies, just where the real security lies in many cases—in the fields, if not in the bank. En fact, the enormous growth of the turnover of agricultural and horticultural co-operative societies
over the past few years is in itself a first-class guarantee of the businesslike methods employed by them. My noble friend Lord Peddie has given the figures between 1953 and 1959. There has been a lift in turnover from £92 million to £144 million. So I have no misgivings about Clause 2.
I hope that this measure will give the co-operative and the agricultural and horticultural societies a feeling that Parliament is behind them in this form of activity. I repeat that I can think of nothing more helpful, more hopeful and more encouraging than what we have witnessed during the past eight or ten years. I hope that those associated with these co-operative societies will feel that Parliament is behind them, and that they will do their best to develop their activities in the interests of both producer and consumer.
7.16 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I should like to express the general support of the Government for this small but very useful Bill, amending the law relating to industrial and provident societies. The duty falls to me largely because the Bill is of great interest to co-operatives connected with agriculture,
1350
horticulture and forestry, and I am charged with assisting my noble friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in these matters in his absence.
As your Lordships will recall, the Government have more than once stated their belief that co-operation in various forms can help farmers and growers to become more efficient, both in production and in marketing. The latest proof of this, of course, is to be found in the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees for 1961, which your Lordships were debating only a little more than a month ago. I may point out that this Bill was introduced in another place and passed through its Second Reading and Committee stages before publication of that Annual Review. Your Lordships will remember that the Government have offered £500,000 a year for market research and development and, in addition, grants of one-third of the total cost for buildings provided by machinery syndicates and grain-drying syndicates which, of course, help the producer greatly. A very large number of people are members and shareholders of societies registered under the Act, and this, of course, does not apply only to the agricultural societies, but applies also to the cone sumer societies to which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, referred in his speech. I: is very proper, therefore, that we should examine from time to time the statutory requirements to which these societies are subject, making sure that they are in line with modern conditions and needs.
As the noble Lord sponsoring the Bill has explained, it provides two changes in the present arrangements, both of which mainly concern agricultural, horticultural and forestry co-operatives. The first is to raise the limit on the value of shares that a society's rules may permit an individual member to hold. The limit on individual shareholding is a basic principle of societies organised under the Act. This is intended to ensure that they are, in fact, run for the benefit of their members as members, and not as mere shareholders. But the Government accept that there is now a case for some further increase in the permitted shareholding from the present level of £500, which was fixed by the 1952 Act. The limit of £1,000 proposed in the Bill will enable some societies to raise appreciably larger amounts of capital in the form of share capital subscribed by their

1351
own members than is at present possible. To that extent they will be less dependent on outside sources for the finance they require. The amendment will be particularly valuable to specialist marketing societies, which I think the noble Lord mentioned, of agricultural and horticultural producers—for example fruit packing societies, which need a rather heavy capital investment.
In order that this higher limit for individual shareholdings may take effect without delay, Clause 1 provides that the relevant rules of a society may be adjusted by a resolution of its committee of management, instead of through the normal procedure for amending rules, which I understand takes a very much longer time. This follows the precedent of the 1952 Act, but in this case there are certain limitations on the use of this procedure. These limitations, in their present form, have been agreed between the Government and the promoters of the Bill, and have been clearly elucidated by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. They secure that the shorter procedure is a strictly temporary arrangement.
The second revision of the Bill concerns only agricultural, horticultural and
forestry societies. It is intended to facilitate the co-operative supply of credit for the purposes of those three industries. Under the present Act a co-operative society cannot lend without security unless it is a banking society. The Bill would permit lending without security to be undertaken by societies consisting mainly of agricultural and horticultural producers and persons engaged in forestry (or organisations of these), provided that the rules of such societies show that their main or principal object is to lend to their members for agricultural, horticultural and forestry purposes. This provision, too, incorporates certain amendments of the Bill as originally submitted to Parliament which have been agreed between the Government and the promoters, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, made some reference. As a result, we now believe that we have a reasonable compromise between the requirements of enterprise and those of financial prudence, and I
1352
support what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, said in that connection as to the people who know what real security is amongst the farming fraternity. We thought it right that the easier conditions for lending now proposed should be available only to specialist lending societies which may be expected to have the necessary expertise in operating credit facilities. The detailed provisions of this clause, which may appear a little complicated, can be fully explained, of course, in Committee.
I need not delay your Lordships any longer, except to say that the Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie (who is, of course, a distinguished leader in the Co-operative Movement) for introducing the Bill into this House, and for doing so in such a clear and concise manner which nobody could fail to appreciate or to understand. Therefore, in spite of a certain lack of support from behind me, I should like to assure both noble Lords who have spoken that not only the Government, but I think also supporters of the Government, especially those interested in agriculture, commend this very useful Bill (which I might describe as a Bill not only for helping ordinary people but for helping ordinary people to help themselves) as permitting certain developments by co-operative societies which the Government consider to be reasonable and consonant with modern needs. In particular, the Bill may be expected to benefit co-operation in agriculture, horticulture and forestry, for which the Government have pledged their support.
7.24 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I would express appreciation for the support which has been given by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, when expressing his confidence in co-operative organisation with the approval and support of the Government. This, I am quite sure, will be appreciated immensely by co-operative organisations.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHAKESPEARE BIRTHPLACE &c. TRUST BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on the 8th February and 26th April last discharged, and Bill referred to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

FACTORIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.